by Asa Winstanley

BIL’IN, West Bank — The demonstration is small, but feisty. Accompanied by around 15 international supporters and a few Israeli stalwarts, the inhabitants of Bil’in, a village in the West Bank near Ramallah, voice their protest against the Israeli Wall and settlements that threaten their village. Chanting Arabic slogans, and demanding in Hebrew the soldiers go home, the demonstrators are prevented from passing through a gate in the Wall by a unit of Israeli soldiers and their jeeps. The soldiers wave their clubs menacingly — not today, they seem to say.

After about 15 minutes, Abdullah Abu Rahme, the co-ordinator of the village’s Popular Committee against the Wall and settlements, calls for the crowd to follow him. They try to find another way through the large coils of razor wire on the near side of the Wall. Some of the demonstrators pull at the wire with thick gloves. These attempts are soon stopped by Israeli soldiers.

The village has been involved in resistance and weekly demonstrations against the Wall for nearly two years beginning in February 2005. The Wall in this area consists of large coils of razor wire, a steep bank, a high fence, a dirt path, another fence and finally a tarmac road, which the soldiers patrol with their jeeps and humvees. Despite the initial claims of the Israeli government that the Wall is only for “security purposes,” in Bil’in, as along some 80 percent of its route, the Wall does not follow the route of the 1967 Green Line. Israeli ministers are now openly saying that the route will determine final borders.

As the Wall has been designed to accommodate the expansion of the Israeli settlements, the village stands to lose 60 percent of its land on the other side. For the small agricultural village some 25 minutes drive from Ramallah, this is a crushing blow.

“They took away the land I used to graze my sheep. They uprooted my family’s olive trees. I used to plant beans, wheat and potatoes. I’m not allowed to get to my land now that it’s behind the wall,” says Wadji Burnat, a 50-year-old farmer from the village. “The Israeli government is a government of thieves. They only care about a small part of their own people. They want to expel the Palestinians.”

Despite this, the villagers have shunned armed struggle in favor of non-violent marches and protests. “We chose this way of resistance because we believe in it,” says Mohammed Katib, a member of the Popular Committee. The committee was set up at the beginning of the campaign to co-ordinate the struggle in all its forms.

“We are leading a legal battle and resistance on the ground at the same time,” says Katib. “We want to try every possible form of non-violent struggle.” Katib, like many of the other non-violent activists in the village, has been repeatedly beaten and tear-gassed by Israeli soldiers at the demonstrations.

Israeli authorities also carry out arrest raids in the village during the dead of night, rounding up leaders of the campaign. One such raid occurred at 2 a.m. on Nov. 22. According to the International Solidarity Movement’s media team, head of the Popular Committee Iyad Burnat, along with three other activists from the village were taken from their homes by Israeli soldiers. They were driven to Ofer prison and then taken for interrogation at the Mod’in police station.

Police and then the Shabak — the Israeli domestic intelligence service — questioned all four at length on their involvement in the weekly demonstrations. They threatened to imprison them. The four were finally released without charge the same evening.

Coordinator Abdullah Abu Rahme, a school teacher, has also been beaten and arrested several times. He recently had a trial postponed after Israeli border police failed to appear in court. Abu Rahme was arrested at three different demonstrations during the summer.

Katib does not regret the campaign however. “We had to do something to stop them from taking our land — everyone in the village together. We had to act. In the committee, we are focusing on a campaign to encourage people to join our demonstrations.”

The weekly demonstrations are joined by supporters and volunteers from across the world. Groups of peace and anti-occupation activists and volunteers, such as the International Solidarity Movement, come to Bil’in each week.

Matchiek, an I.S.M. volunteer from Poland, chose to come to Palestine because of its global importance. “Within this region there is the central issue of injustice against the Palestinians. When these two issues overlapped I knew I had to see it with my own eyes,” says the freelance journalist.

Israeli supporters also join in the demonstrations every week. A dedicated group of Israelis, who support the Palestinian right to self determination, attend the weekly demonstrations week in and week out, and have made many Palestinian friends. They include the Israeli film maker Shai Pollak, who won the Best Documentary award at this year’s Jerusalem Film festival for his documentary, “Bil’in My Love,” which is about the village and their struggle.

Kobi Snitz, another regular, says he first started coming to the West Bank from Israel three years ago when he saw the projected route of the Wall in an Israeli newspaper. “I was shocked. I couldn’t believe anyone would support it. I started showing the map to people and saying ‘look at what they’re going to do!’ It struck me as an impossible situation. Soon after I joined a group of activists who were doing something about it — the Anarchists Against the Wall.”

Israelis from groups who go to the West Bank like the Anarchists are subject to harassment from the Shabak, says Snitz. “They have ‘invited’ most of the hardcore activists to an individual meeting. They say ‘please come’ but it’s an invitation you can’t refuse. They say they will come and pick us up off the street otherwise.”

“The meetings consist of them saying they are watching us and tapping our phones. Maybe they are bluffing, but they definitely want us to be paranoid. Personally I have nothing to hide. If my personal life is interesting to anyone then: ahlan wa-salan [welcome]. They gave us lectures about how we should ‘watch out’ for Palestinians because they will ‘use us,’” says Snitz, who, like many of the other Israeli activists is a competent Arabic speaker.

Mansour Mansour is a Palestinian non-violent activist from the nearby village of Biddu. The former I.S.M. coordinator regularly comes to Bil’in demonstrations. “The Israeli activists face the same violence as us at the demonstrations. They don’t tell us what to do — they follow our plans,” he says.

Israeli activist visits to Palestinian villages, under threat from the Wall and from settlements, are subject to debate, however. There is sometimes criticism from Palestinians that such visits constitute “normalization.” Normalization is the concept that the Palestinians and Israelis need only to sit down and get along better to solve the problems in the region. Critics say this is politically naive thinking that completely ignores the basic political situation of the Palestinians under Israeli occupation — that the two “sides” are anything but equal.

Normalization projects were popular during the early Oslo years, when many Palestinians and Israelis were hopeful for an end to the “conflict.” Dialogue groups were set up all over the West Bank. Most Palestinians now agree that much more is needed — namely an end to the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Snitz is wary that their solidarity might be misunderstood. “As long as it’s clear our purpose is supporting the struggle, then that’s altogether different from coming just to drink tea. This is an education that the Israeli peace movement needs to go through — even the part of it that is not afraid to come to Palestine,” he says. “It’s up to the Palestinians to decide if the contribution we make to the struggle outweighs any inadvertent negative effects from normalization. It’s their struggle. If they want us to participate then we will.”

Despite the popular conception in the Western media of the Islamic movement Hamas as anti-Semitic and “dedicated to the destruction of Israel,” Hamas politicians have been amongst the many public figures participating in the joint demonstrations. Even people from the more hard-line group Islamic Jihad have participated. Both groups have done so in the full knowledge that they would be marching alongside Israelis and Jews from around the world, says Katib.

“Representatives from every Palestinian faction have come,” he says. “Hakam Yousef, the leader of Hamas in the West Bank came more than once. Ksadar Adnan, a spokesman from Islamic Jihad has participated too. They came in the full knowledge there would be Israelis at the demonstration. They said that if they saw this form of resistance against the occupation working, then they would follow our example.”

Mansour says it was the same in Biddu. “Hamas, Jihad — all the factions supported the demonstrations. The people were just defending their land. They are farmers. If someone from Hamas is about to lose his land then of course he’s going to take part in the demonstrations.”

Back at the demonstration, as usual, the gate Israelis say allows farmers to access their land is blocked by soldiers. The demonstrators want to reach the annexed village land. An emerging pattern in all villages along the route of the Wall seems to be that even when the Wall is completed, people are barred from passing through the gates. This includes farmers with permits.

A handful of protesters hold a sit-in on the area between razor wire and the first fence for about 20 minutes, while soldiers prevent more from joining them. Eventually, the Popular Committee calls on the demonstrators to follow them back into the village as one group.

On the way back, groups of youths are attacked by Israeli border police who have taken up positions in and near houses on the outskirts of the village. This is followed by the youths, fed up with the presence of the paramilitary force, hurling stones at them. The rest of the demonstrators are forced to take a long circuitous route back to avoid the unevenly matched clashes.

The Dec. 15 demonstration in Bil’in was relatively peaceful, with less military violence than in the past. However, the Israeli military still used rubber bullets and tear gas to attack Palestinian youths who stoned them in defense of their village. Additionally, soldiers also shot rubber-coated steel bullets at them, causing some minor injuries.

Past demonstrations have faced far more serious violence, especially during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon this summer. These demonstrations witnessed extremely brutal behavior by soldiers, who used clubs, rubber-coated steel bullets and tear gas to break up the demonstrators. Those who were seriously injured included Palestinians, Israelis and international volunteers alike. Thankfully, there were no fatalities in Bil’in, possibly due to the presence of the media. Other peaceful Palestinian demonstrations not covered by the international media have ended with fatalities.

Mansour’s village of Biddu held regular non-violent demonstrations during 2004 to resist the Wall and settlements. This sustained campaign, combined with legal challenges in Israeli courts, led to a significant alteration in the route of the Wall. But this success came at a high cost.

“The soldiers used to react really badly. They beat people and broke my cousin’s nose. They also broke the bones of people who were sitting down on the ground in an attempt to block the path of the bulldozers. People were chaining themselves in a big circle around the bulldozers — not looking for clashes,” recounts Mansour.

“Five were killed during the campaign. Three were killed in one day, Feb. 26, 2004. The fourth was shot with a rubber bullet to the head and died six days later on March 2. The fifth was killed on April 18.”

For today, the demonstration is over and most villagers have returned home. The distinct sound of live ammunition firing still echoes from the direction of the soldiers, while they continue “clashing” with stone-throwing youths. “This is nothing — I’ve been in a war,” one soldier earlier boasted to me during the demonstration.

Mohammed Katib is tired, but still full of energy as he looks to the future. “The struggle against the Wall did not start in Bil’in. For us, it was a learning process from places like Mas’ha, Budrus and Biddu. It’s been nearly two years and we will continue until we see success on the ground, till we obtain our goals, change the route of the wall and liberate our land.”

In the run up to the London demo, much of the liberal press derided the movement, although there was plenty of sort-of favourable coverage too. It was also predicted around this time, that there would be mass walkouts in workplaces around the country on the the event of war (in the event, if this did happen to any extent, the media made sure it did not spread by simply not reporting it). The government at one stage tried to ban the march to Hyde park, though it ultimately relented to pressure (as if it had much choice anyway). Meanwhile, the US continuted to make up pretty pictures in a vain attempt to convince the UN that it had a good reason to invade.

The final count for the day was up to 30 million around the world, including 2 million in the UK. Notable is the fact that the largest protests were seen in the countries whose governments supported the US most. As Chomsky pointed out, the scale of the anti-war movement was unprecedented. Never before have the populations of the imperialist nations agitated against one of its government’s wars before it even started.

More articles on this: Anti-war protesters rally to cause. ‘I’ve never known anything like it. Everyone’s saying they will march’

At the same time, there was a huge upsurge throughout the whole of the media in warnings about imminent terrorist attacks supposed to happen any minute now. Hmmm… Nothing to do with keeping us pliant and scaring us into not making a fuss about the war I suppose…

Another one I only got to filing on my site in 2007, changing the datestamp for the purpose of this posting.

by Asa Winstanley

Introduction

The success of the free software movement is a potential proof of the validity of anarchist arguments in favour of a self-organising society, free of exploitation, coercion and hierarchy. Furthermore, I believe that it demonstrates that complex technological systems are possible when they have no leader, central government or managers [1]. In addition, the movement has created a vast array of useful software tools available at no cost to activists and communities, and has raised public awareness of issues such as openness, freedom of information, public accountability and co-operative creation of tools and standards.

However, in this article I am more interested with areas in which I think the movement is at odds with the political theory and practice of anarchism. The constrictions on the world-view of the free software community are often very real, as we will see in what follows.

Marxists and the left

Although the anti-capitalist movement in general has at least a basic awareness of free software, the more traditional left seems to be largely ignorant of it [2]. There is, however, a small German group called Oekonux who seek to understand the phenomenon using Marxist analysis. They look forward to a “GPL society” and see free software as a “germ” in capitalist society; part of “an objective historical process” that will lead to “the generalisation of the principles of free software to the whole of the productive social progress [sic]“. Thus: true communism via the rules of free software [3].

Although some of this group’s analysis is interesting and makes some valid points, its central thesis of a “GPL society” is essentially vacuous. People who have computers and the internet can share free software precisely because it costs practically nothing to do so. The same can not be said of food, shelter or heating. Even if computers and the internet were anywhere near being equally spread around the world one could still not defy the laws of physics with nothing more than a Marxist historical analysis.

Of course, the left is not a homogeneous mass; some seem to have a more realistic view. For example, in an article from the New Left Review: “[although] the free exchange of software has led some commentators to compare the online gift economy with the ceremony of potlatch, in which people bestow extravagant presents, or even sacrifice goods, to raise their prestige, it fundamentally differs in that the copying and distribution of software is almost cost-free — at least if one excludes the large initial outlay for a computer and networking facilities” [4].

Freedom for who?

Free software is often said to be a great equaliser. Everyone has the same right to use, study and modify it, due to the freely available source code and the legal provisions in free software licenses such as the GNU GPL. This is a fine concept in theory. When we look at the world in a wider context, however, we start to see the same old problems of inequality and domination. Software freedoms are, by definition, restricted to those who have the physical facilities to make use of them: an electricity supply and a computer. Furthermore, an internet connection is required to communicate and to share. Computers are luxuries if seen in a global context.

Looking at global figures of access to basic ICT facilities, the scale of the disparity is surprising. There are several good studies looking at global telecommunication and computer access figures, but I will use the latest UN Human Development Report as my main statistics base (incidentally this report gives some of the more optimistic figures I have seen) [5]. In 2001 there were only 169 telephone mainlines for every 1000 people around the world. This is a rise from 98 lines per 1000 people in 1990. A 1999 investigation by a BBC Online journalist put it this way: “more than 80% of people in the world have never heard a dial tone, let alone sent an email or downloaded information from the… web” [6]. In 1995 South Africa’s President (then Deputy President) Thabo Mbeki said: “The reality is that there are more telephone lines in Manhattan, New York, than in sub-Saharan Africa” [7]. According to Black this was an understatement: “the situation is even worse in Africa [than in Asia]. With 739 million people, there are only 14 million phone lines. That’s fewer than in Manhattan or Tokyo. Eighty percent of those lines are in only six countries” [8].

The share of world population with regular access to the internet stood in 2001 at 8% [9]. Other sources give slightly different figures [10]. Numbers of computers are similarly low at 9% [11]. Not without reason has Noam Chomsky called the internet “an elite operation”, despite all its democratising effects [12]. This assessment, made in 1996, still stands. Even if access to electricity, computers and the internet were in place, there are the more fundamental problems of illiteracy, the Anglo-centric nature of the web and lack of basic computer skills. Black sums it up: “[the internet] may be the wave of the future but age-old problems still apply”. In the report, Black and others looked at case studies such as “Benin… [where] more than 60% of the population is illiterate. The other 40% are similarly out of luck. Four-fifths of websites are in English, a language understood by only one in 10 people on the planet” [13].

Information inequalities

There is a standard phrase used to refer to these inequalities – the digital divide. Like much of our everyday language, this is a propaganda term. It gives the picture of a world of ‘two halves’ – those with computers and the internet, and those who do not have them yet. The global reality seen is of course very different. The ‘haves’ actually form a global elite, while the ‘have-nots’ constitute the vast majority of the world. There is no compelling reason to believe that greater technological innovation alone will substantially reverse this trend. While freely available and modifiable software tools are a great help to activists and community computer projects here and in the global south, they can only work within the restraints of massive social inequalities. The laudable principles of the Free Software Foundation are irrelevant to Indian villagers who have no access to electric power or computers. Software cannot be used where there are no computers, and free software distribution or co-operative development is severely limited amongst the 90% of people who have no internet access.

The technological privileges of class and race in the west

In our more privileged part of the world the hierarchies of knowledge come into play more, but the older economic disparities still take hold. According to the government’s own figures, less than half of British adults have access to the internet at home, as of June 2003. If those who have regular access via internet cafes, libraries and so on are factored in the figure rises, but only to 56%, with 61% having ever used it. These figures are a definite improvement from 2000; household access is up from only 33%. Clearly, we too have a ‘digital divide’ broadly along class lines. A study along race lines would probably reveal further inequalities. There are other factors for the deficit, such as the fact it is a relatively new technology that many are not yet comfortable with. Indeed, major growth over time has occurred – only 9% of households had net access in 1998. However, the general trend in the figures suggests that we are now reaching a plateau, and that this divide in the nation will be broadly sustained as long as more general class, race and educational divisions remain [14].

A look at a 1999 US government study reveals very similar findings [15]. Black, Hispanic, Native American and rurally based Americans are much less likely to have access to computers, especially those in lower income ranges. In fact, although access has improved for the most disadvantaged sectors since 1994, inequality actually widened. For example, the gap in computer access between white and Hispanic households between 1994 and 1998. The report even found that black people had less internet access anywhere than white people had at home. For black people too the overall situation has improved since the internet took off in 1994, although the gap between them and the white population also increased significantly. However, in black households making over $75,000 the gap, though still present, narrowed between 1997 and 1998. Class trumps race in this respect. At the absolute bottom of the pile, though, are Native Americans. Access to computers in 1999 for rurally based Native Americans was far below the national average of 42% at 27%, and internet access was at a mere 19% at a time when the national average was at 26%.

Retreat from reality

While this cursory review of the statistics reveals a striking divide in the west, it is obviously nothing compared to more pressing global inequalities. Those of us with internet access are the more privileged half of the western world, but we are part of an even smaller global elite. When we next hear grand rhetoric about the “global community” of internet and free software users, let us remember how narrow this community really is, even within our own countries.

Many in the free software movement are blind to the reality of this situation. Responsible for this attitude, in no small part, are grand illusions about the ‘free market’. Presupposed by its proponents is equal opportunity for all, equal access to resources and information, and so on. Trickle-down economics. The reality, of course, is far different. This comes as no surprise to anyone concerned with genuine egalitarian development and a humanitarian vision of globalisation – and least of all to anarchists. Unfortunately, there is a small but significant current in the free software and open source movements that are extreme supporters of the ‘free market’ – those who usurp the honourable term ‘libertarian’. Worse still, some of them happen to regard themselves as the movement’s ‘leaders’. This leads to several problems, not the least of which are self imposed blindness to inequality, subsuvervience to corporate interests and the growth of technocratic elitism.

Free market assumptions

Eric S. Raymond is one such figure. The term “Open Source” was coined and is promoted by him amongst others. In 1998 they founded the Open Source Initiative. Although he has made no significant free software contributions, Raymond explicitly presents himself to the wider world as a leader of the ‘open source’ movement, especially to business leaders who he focuses on in his campaign for corporate adoption of the GNU/Linux operating system. This is a step beyond the respect (albeit sometimes bordering on an unhealthy cult of personality) for figures who are admired because of their their software (e.g. Richard Stallman, Linus Torvalds) or for establishing projects and legal mechanisms to protect and promote free software. Raymond describes his role as “public advocate for the hacker tribe, speaker-to-journalists, evangelist/interface to the corporate world” [16]. He is part of the strange American anomaly that calls itself “free market libertarianism” or “anarcho-capitalism”. Around the rest of the world, ‘libertarian’ is just a more friendly name for an anarchist – someone against both private wealth and state power. In the US in recent years the word has been adopted by radical ‘free market’ advocates. They tend to presuppose. a world in which everyone has the same access to computers and more or less the same access to the internet. Failures of access to technology are down to the individual, not the provider and certainly not the government. This form of what could be termed ‘radical corporatocracy’ suggests that government is not needed because private corporate interests and the ‘free market’ should control everything (except for a some form of minimal government for things like national defense). Services that were normally public (libraries, for instance) Formerly public services would be only be available to those with the money to pay for them. A more appropriate title for such a political philosophy is “free market fundamentalism”. [Editors' note: see this month's supplementary essay.]

Such disturbing politics could simply be ignored, were it not for the limitations of vision it imposes on sectors of the free software movement. It makes for an extremely blinkered view of the world – presupposing that if we can only make enough free software then we have “the possibility for a fairer free market that stands a chance of achieving the requirements of comparable goods” [17]. Oddly enough, this almost mirrors the “GPL society” ideas of Oekonux – emancipation through information. In the real world, however, such advances can only come through much larger changes in wider social conditions. Free software can certainly play a part in widening consciousness and making people think that “there is another way”, but it is limited in what it can achieve.

Richard Stallman for one seems to have a more considered and realistic outlook on the place of software freedom [18]:

“I hesitate to exaggerate the importance of this little puddle of freedom, because the more well-known and conventional areas of working for freedom and a better society are tremendously important. I wouldn’t say that free software is as important as they are. It’s the responsibility I undertook, because it dropped in my lap and I saw a way I could do something about it. But, for example, to end police brutality, to end the war on drugs, to end the kinds of racism we still have… these are tremendously important issues, far more important than what I do. I just wish I knew how to do something about them.”

Solutions

This essay has been mainly about identifying problems. I would like to tenuously suggest the beginnings of some possible solutions, or at least a few possible directions for future debate. I avoid discussion of what to do in the short term in the global south, as they often have more pressing needs, such as running water [19]. There is no reason that information development could not progress in the global south as long as priorities and local needs are paramount [20].

Awareness raising within LUGs

LUGs are Linux User Groups. They organise activities such as “install-fests” where anyone can bring their computer along and have GNU/Linux installed. They also engage in regular “meets” and hold discussions on the latest happenings in the free software world. One possible strategy would be to work within these groups to raise awareness of wider social and political issues, to try and point out the links between technology and liberation or oppression. One example of the latter is the use by the US military of GNU/Linux systems. The president of a LUG in Los Angles recently gave up his post, citing this concern as his main reason [21]. It is not, therefore, a question of “politicising” these groups, rather it is a question of whether or not they will maintain their often questionable politics.

Groups such as the Brixton Linux Action Group (http://www.blagblagblag.org) (who maintain an activist-focused GNU/Linux distribution called BLAG) and those involved in the organisation of the Lancaster AktiviX events (http://seedsforchange.org.uk/aktivix/) are a welcome development in this regard. Nick Hill on the AktiviX mailing list, recently made the point that most LUG’s abdication of concern over social and political issues is attributable to both the intolerance for open debate within many LUGs, and their attitude towards “the otherness of ‘Linux’ and ‘open source’ [which] does not carry with it a strong political dimension” because they shy away from the essentially political nature of the GPL and free software in favour of short term gains [22].

Alternative ‘social contract’ licenses?

Free software can be used by anyone for anything. There are no free software licenses that prevent, even in theory, people or groups who work against a good society – even those who actively work against free software. The Open Source Definition even has a “no discrimination against fields of endeavour” clause, stating as examples that restricting “the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research” would stop a license from being considered ‘open source’ [23]. The Free Software Foundation is similarly permissive, saying that free software requires that there is “freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it… for any kind of overall job” [24]. Within the free software community, there are basically two schools of thought on this issue. The first: free software is like free speech and you should not deny it to even your worst enemies, including fascist groups and the US Military (the latter make extensive use of GNU/Linux and other free software, and even release some of their own software under the GPL). The second school of thought is that such ‘social contract’ provisions would be unenforceable. One such ‘debate’ was recently held on the comments page of the Newsforge story about the LA LUG president who resigned (he was roundly condemned). A smaller version of the debate was held recently on the ActiviX mailing list recently in which Nick Hill made the interesting point that [25]:

“It would be better if… military budgets were much smaller and the money put directly to good use, but this requires political effort. Aiming to stop the military from using open software technologies is certainly the wrong way to counter colonialism. Everyone can freely benefit from improvements to the system made as a result of military dollars spent on Linux system development”.

Hacklabs

Although the political awakening of LUGs is slowly starting to happen with awareness raised over issues such as the SCO attacks and the software patents issue, it is unclear how far this can go as “LUG structures may not be conducive to good political debate” [26]. One possible approach to this problem would be to explicitly challenge formal or informal hierarchies and ideological narrowness within LUGs, pressing for wider social and political debate and action relating to free software.

A possibly more productive approach would be to take part in the much wider Hacklab movement (http://www.hacklabs.org) that is taking off around Europe. I’m currently involved in one such project in the east end of London, the Freedom Press Media Hacklab (http://www.hacklab.org.uk). Explicitly political spaces for activists, free software enthusiasts and the wider community, Hacklabs are an exciting development. Starting our own Hacklabs in poorer communities would benefit the anarchist movement immensely, grounding us in real communities. Also it could provide the wider public with more ideologically open internet access, not subject to the (intensely political) censorship of filtering software that is often imposed in public libraries and schools [27]. We don’t have to travel to the global south to start filling the gap. We have our own 50% of information have-nots. Like setting up social centres, starting Hacklabs are a definite challenge that can often meet significant opposition (especially in occupied spaces), as well as internal organisational and directional challenges.

The free software movement, and the vast array of tools it has produced are welcome developments. It may yet lead to a wider political awakening within technocratic elite sectors. But free software, the GPL, or indeed the entire concept of copyleft are not panaceas. The “little puddle” may be able to connect to a wider “ocean” [28] but the task remains for anarchists and others to make this ocean into a reality.

Footnotes

1. See Asa Winstanley, “The Free Software Movement: Anarchism in Action”, December 2003. http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/12/283113.html

2. John Levin, “Re: Stalls at Marxism 2003″, message to the FSF Europe, UK email list, 17 May 2003. http://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/fsfe-uk/2003-05/msg00060.html

3. Raoul Victor, “Free Software and Market Relations”, http://www.oekonux.org/texts/marketrelations.html

4. Julian Stallabrass, “Digital Commons”, New Left Review 15, May-June 2002.

5. United Nations Development Project (UNDP), Human Development Report 2003. http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2003/index.html

6. Jane Black, “Information rich, Information Poor: Losing ground bit by bit”, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1999/10/99/information_rich_info rmation_poor/472621.stm.

7. Reuters, “Third World Wonders About Information Highway”, 28 February 1995. http://www.di.unito.it/mail_archive/G7/0015.html

8. Black, “Losing ground bit by bit”.

9. UNDP, Human Development Report 2003, p277 for this and previous figures. The figure given is 79.6 “internet users” per 1000 people globally. It is unclear whether “internet users” refers to those who use it regularly or those who have ever used it. For the purpose of this essay I will be more optimistic and assume the former.

10. See, for example, Subbiah Arunachalam, “Reaching the unreached: How can we use ICTs to empower the rural poor?”, 24 August 2002 http://www.mssrf.org/informationvillage/ifla.html. He puts the figure for those who have benefited from the “fourth information revolution” at 5% globally. Larry Irving, former US assistant secretary of commerce (in Black, “Losing ground bit by bit”) put the figure at 2% in 1999. On the other hand, some are more optimistic, if only in vague terms. For example, the ITU (the UN group behind the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS)) recently argued that gaps in available data suggest that the situation may not be as bleak as usually presented (see BBC News Online, “Digital divide figures ‘flawed’”, 10 December, 2003 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3303717.stm. (Note also that Richard Stallman heavily criticised the WSIS for its suppression of dissent, calling it “more of a trade show and conference than a real summit meeting” (see: Stallman, “World Summit on the Information Society”, undated http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/wsis.html.)).

11. UNDP, “Human Development Report 2003″, p236.

12. Andrew Marr interviews Noam Chomsky for BBC Radio, “The Big Idea”, February 1996. Transcript online: http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/interviews/9602-big-idea.html

13. Black, “Losing ground bit by bit”.

14. Office of the e-Envoy, “UK Online Annual Report”, 15 December 2003 http://www.e-envoy.gov.uk/MediaCentre/NewOnSiteArticle/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=40 06060&chk=rIWVHj

15. National Telecommunications and Information Administration, “Falling Through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide”, November 1999 http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/digitaldivide/.

16. Eric S. Raymond, “Take My Job, Please!”, 29 March 1999 http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/take-my-job-please.html. For material critical of Raymond see the relevant Wikipedia article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_S._Raymond

17. MJ Ray, “Re: Stalls at Marxism 2003″, message to the FSF Europe, UK email list, 19 May 2003. http://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/fsfe-uk/2003-05/msg00084.html

18. Sam Williams, Free as in Freedom: Richard Stallman’s Crusade for Free Software, chapter 5 http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/.

19. Around 58% of urban households in Africa have no access to running water. See UNDP, “Human Development Report 2003″, p104.

20. For an example of such a project see Arunachalam, “Reaching the unreached: How can we use ICTs to empower the rural poor?”.

21. Newsforge, “Los Angeles LUG [president] resigns over military Linux use”, 21 April 2004 http://technology.newsforge.com/technology/04/04/20/2229245.shtml.

22. Nick Hill, “re: Should we use Linux at all?”, 23 April 2004 (A) http://springnight.burngreave.net/pipermail/aktivix/2004-April/000227.html

23. Open Source Initiative, “The Open Source Definition. http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php

24. Free Software Foundation, “The Free Software Definition”. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

25. Nick Hill, “re: Should we use Linux at all?”, 23 April 2004 (B) http://springnight.burngreave.net/pipermail/aktivix/2004-April/000223.html.

26. Hill, “re: Should we use Linux at all?” (A).

27. For more on software censorship of the internet see http://www.peacefire.org.

28. Stallabrass, “Digital Commons”.

I wrote a follow a second article that is the logical sequel called, “The Limits of Free Software.”

by Asa Winstanley

What are the implications of the free software (called ‘open source’ by business leaders) movement for anarchists and activists in general? Could things be learned from it? Just how anarchist is GNU/Linux and other such projects? Little analysis or debate has been had on this. My article intends to stir some.

Introduction

The free software movement has been around in at least since 1984, but there is little awareness or debate about it in anarchist or general activist circles, beyond a vague awareness of “Linux”. A theoretical anarchist analysis of the movement and the lessons we can learn from it seems to be conspicuous only by its absence. Yet this is a movement which is currently affecting a revolution in the way individuals, groups and companies use and create computer systems. I intend this piece to stimulate further debate, as there is currently little. Also, I am no expert in anarchist history or theory, so would be happy to receive criticism of the inevitable shortcomings in my comparisons.

Background

Definition and implications of free software

Free software refers to “freedom” not price. It is defined by the Free Software Foundation to consist of four main freedoms – software that everyone has the right to: use, distribute, examine and modify for any purpose, either gratis or for a fee. In practical terms, to be free to examine or modify software requires free access to the ‘source code’ of the software. Most software is made by ‘compiling’ the source code that programmers write and understand into ‘executables’ – the machine language that computer processors understand. Software companies who make most or all of their software non-free like Microsoft or Apple keep the source code a tightly guarded “trade secret”. This secrecy has negative implications for the quality and security (1) of the software as well as the level of freedom in its use, modification and creation. Free software is all about increasing freedom, something anarchists appreciate. Thus the free software concept is libertarian. It is also socialist in that everyone has an equal right to these four main freedoms. Also, the right to charge a fee (even make a profit) does not give one the right to stop others giving it away. In practice, this means that published free software is almost without exception available for no monetary charge over the Internet. In practical terms free software means that not only can you give your friends free CD copies of GNU/Linux, which you have downloaded from the Internet (2) without breaking the law, but you could also get your programmer friends to modify, say, one of the Indymedia code bases to add extra features, or to make it more suitable for your group’s website. Non-programming users often contribute to the community by submitting bug-reports (fixed much faster than in proprietary software projects) and writing documentation.

Copyleft – a revolutionary concept

Freedom, however, requires protection. The most revolutionary idea in free software is “copyleft”. Copyleft is a subversion of the copyright system, using the law against itself. Under copyleft based free software licenses such as the GNU General Public License (or GPL), all copies and modifications of the software must be relicensed under the same terms. This guarantee the same freedoms for all. So, to carry on our two examples from the previous paragraph: the people you gave the free CDs of GNU/Linux to would be obliged to pass on the same rights to anyone they choose to make copies of the CDs to; and your friend’s modifications to the Indymedia code base would have to released under the same license. This creates a virtuous cycle, a software commons that everyone can contribute to, but no one can take away from. Unlike non-free software, copyleft code ensures an increasing knowledge base from which individuals can draw from and, equally as important, contribute to. In this way everyone benefits as code can be improved by everyone. Because of this, Microsoft has referred to the GPL as a “cancer” and “un-American” (3) – a definite sign that they are worried. Non-copylefted free software is unfortunately prone to being poached by selfish parties. Apple’s usage of the BSD internals for OS X is one case of this, which we will look at in more depth later.

Some confusing terms to avoid: “freeware”, “shareware” and “Open Source”

To clear up some confusion, there are several terms we should avoid if we are interested in promoting freedom in software. The terms “freeware” and “shareware” do not refer to free software. Freeware has no set definition, but usually means just a free download, with no right to modify or examine. Shareware is “try before you buy” type proprietary software which gives no right of full use (it is often crippled with enforced trail periods or an incomplete feature set), let alone the rights of examination or modification. The FSF has a diagram (4) which explains the differences in the various terms. The “open source” movement largely overlaps with the free software movement, but has ultimately different goals. In practice the vast majority of so called open source projects are also free software projects, and in fact most are copyleft too. Thankfully, the GPL is by far the most popular free software license, covering many projects including the mighty GNU/Linux (popularly shortened to “Linux”) operating system itself. However, while the main aim of the FSF in particular and the free software movement in general is to promote freedom in software use and creation, the aim of the open source movement (including the OSI – Open Source Initiative) is to improve efficiency of production. Basically, it is free software rebranded to make it more appealing to CEOs, scared by the “un-American” implications of “freedom”. This newer movement (5) has lead to something of a schism in the free software community. In practice, the difference is often just a matter of emphasis. However, the focus on asking business leaders to behave better in terms of how they produce their software has in the past led to unhealthy compromises. My opinion is that, as people who believe in freedom before efficiency, we should refer to “free software” and not “open source”.

“Software Should Not Have Owners”

Uber-hacker Richard Stallman is a sort of hippie, programming world equivalent of Noam Chomsky. He is the head of the FSF, the GNU project founder and the originator of the GPL. He is seen as the main founder and spiritual guardian of the concepts of free software and copyleft. Although his primary work is nowadays as a a sort of international propagandist, defender of and zealot for the free software cause, he was once a prolific programmer. He programmed the original versions of the Emacs editor, the GCC software complier and worked on other vital parts of the GNU operating system. In fact he worked so hard on them, it is rumored that one of the reasons that he now rarely programs is that he has developed repetitive strain injury in his wrists from all that typing. He once described himself as “a sort of combination between a liberal and a leftist anarchist. I like to see people working together, voluntarily, to solve the world’s problems. But, if we can’t do that, I think we should get the government involved to solve them. ” (6).

Free Software Triumphant

What is GNU/Linux?

GNU/Linux is a free operating system that is considered the imminent successor in the IT world to all commercial operating systems. It has an estimated installed base of some 18 million users (7). It dates back to January 1984 when Stallman started the GNU project. Its design broadly follows that of the proprietary UNIX system. It was partially as a reaction to the closing-up of the software culture at the AI labs in MIT where Stallman had worked, that he started the project (8). The ambitious aim was to create an operating system from scratch that was completely free and unpolluted by inclusion of code from any existing proprietary system. By the early nineties, this goal was largely achieved. Only one vital component was missing – the kernel. A kernel is the central hub of any operating system; it communicates between programs, and between the software and the hardware. In 1991 in Finland a computer student called Linus Torvalds started a new hobby. He started writing his own kernel (licensing it under the GPL) and added the GNU system tools to make up a UNIX-like operating system. At first he jokingly named it after himself: ‘Linux’, but by the time many other programmers started to get involved the name had stuck. When the system matured and started seriously taking off in the mid nineties, Stallman and the FSF were unhappy about the name of the system as it was popularly called: Linux. He argued that the GNU project should be credited in the name, seeing as they had done the majority of the work. There is one opinion that says that ‘GNU/Linux’ is too unwieldy to use in everyday speech, plus Torvalds and the other kernel hackers had called the whole system ‘Linux’ from day one. However, the fact remains that Linux is really only the kernel, and the vast majority of the system is GNU code. While GNU could not have worked as an OS without Linux (9), Linux could not work at all without GNU. Hence the preferred term: GNU/Linux.

Because of the nature of how GNU/Linux came to be, it has is no single provider. Various vendors create ‘distributions’. These range from professionally polished distros by ‘Linux companies’ like Red Hat, Mandrake and SuSE; smaller scale projects for personal or more specialised uses, like Gentoo or SmoothWall (a Firewall distro); and then there is Debian. Debian, to my knowledge, is unique in the world of operating systems. It is an operating system put together and maintained by a large community of voluntary programmers. It has a Constitution, a Social Contract which (unlike the ‘Linux companies’) guarantees that only 100% free software will be used in Debian, a huge community of support and many high demand users. All this runs in a democratic fashion with no managers or bosses. Design decisions are decided over mailing lists and in committees; a ‘project leader’ elected once a year handles higher level co-ordination. Debian reflects the most pure form of the free software ideal. Arguably, it is also technically the best GNU/Linux distro, and is widely regarded as the second most popular GNU/Linux distribution after Red Hat (10).

Not Just Operating Systems

There is now a free software equivalent to almost any Windows or Mac software you can name. In terms of network oriented software, free software far outstrips the number of native Windows and Mac offerings. For example, the Apache web server is by far and away the most popular web server software in existence (11) and is often acknowledged to be the best there is. Large corporations including HP, Apple and the BBC use it for high-demand web sites. Also, free software effectively runs the Internet. Several of the software packages used for the fundamental infrastructure of the Internet are free software: BIND makes domain names (like www.enrager.net or www.bbc.co.uk) work and sendmail is responsible for delivering a large proportion of the world’s email traffic. From the beginning, GNU/Linux has been most popularly used for Internet servers of various kinds. It has traditionally been weaker on the desktop, giving Microsoft free reign. Since the late nineties, this has no longer been the case. GNU/Linux is rapidly maturing into a very user-friendly desktop environment with a whole host of free software applications for the normal user. Email clients, several web browsers, CD burning software, office suites, graphics and audio software: it’s all there. There are even powerful free software database packages, such as MySQL. The only major packages currently lacking are mature desktop publishing and video editing software. Give it three years and it will all be in place. Many IT world pundits are currently predicting the imminent conquest of GNU/Linux on the desktop. This being Microsoft’s main revenue source, it is unsurprising that they attack GNU/Linux. The only serious factor holding up GNU/Linux on the desktop is Microsoft’s monopoly practices. Most normal computer users will just use what they find already installed on their computer, and at the moment, Microsoft has ways of making sure that that will remain Windows. Another factor here is hardware support. But this has improved greatly over the last few years with hardware manufacturers opening up their interfaces so that the community can write free software drivers for them, or even releasing their own drivers under the GPL.

In addition, GNU/Linux is not the only free (as in freedom) operating system. There are also the various BSD based systems, some of which pre-date GNU/Linux. They include FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD. These are free software but are not protected by copyleft. Free software has gone way beyond a computer geek’s play thing. It is a force to be reckoned with.

The implications of free software for anarchists

The Copyleft concept beyond software

In his lectures about copyright, trademarks and patents, Stallman himself notes that the copyleft concept used in the software world may not be appropriate for all spheres of life. Indeed, he notes that it is the conventional conception of copyright that enforces one model for all kinds of works, technical or artistic. Stallman goes beyond rejecting the capitalist conception of “intellectual property” and rejects the term entirely (“I have no opinion about ‘intellectual property’, and neither should you” (12) ). His reasoning is that it is simply a “propaganda term” that capitalists use to conflate several entirely separate concepts: copyrights, trademarks and patents. The free software and particularly the copyleft concepts represent a frontal assault to the right of large corporations and unaccountable bodies like the WTO and WIPO to comodify ideas, information and even genes and living organisms.

What would result if the spirit of these concepts were adapted to other spheres? There have been several movements in this direction. As well as the GPL the FSF developed the Free Documentation license, because “free software ought to have free documentation”. This has helped spread the copyleft principle to written works of several genres. O’Reilly, a computer books publisher popular with the free software community publishes some of its works under the FDL and make them available for no charge on its web site. The excellent, voluminous Anarchist FAQ is licensed under the FDL (13). There is also an FDL licensed on line encyclopedia called Wikipedia. The name comes from the fact that the site runs on “Wiki” software. A Wiki is another libertarian concept. Quite simply it enables anyone to modify any page of the website, with all versions of each page retained. This means that vandals usually don’t bother. Skeptics may think that this would result in chaos, but in fact it has resulted in an encyclopedia of excellent quality, with over 168,000 articles and counting. Wikipedia is also generally more free in its ideological range, giving space for various points of view. It has some good anarchism related articles (however, many of the country articles are in serious need of (our) help, as the starting point for many of them was the CIA World “Fact”-book…). There is also a copyleft law project. Wendy Selzer who runs Openlaw says, “We deliberately used free software as a model. The gains are much the same as for software. Hundreds of people scrutinise the ‘code’ for bugs, and make suggestions how to fix it. And people will take underdeveloped parts of the argument, work on them, then patch them in.” Those involved with Openlaw strongly believe that the open strategy is a particularly effective way to help citizens rights and community groups (14).

Organising Methods of the Free Software community

GNU and copyleft have captured the world wide hacker community’s imagination, for both practical and political reasons. The copyleft agreement has became a symbol of idealistic and technical achievement as well as of personal and political integrity. Here anarchists can see a vindication of their ideas working out in the real world. But what about their organising methods? Most smaller free software projects are written by small groups of hackers working over the Internet. This is done in spare time or during a day job if they can get away with making it (officially or unofficially) a part of their job description. Many are students and academics. The small scale and voluntary nature of these projects make them effectively libertarian. The small size of the groups also makes them very affective, while still being able to draw on the power of the wider community via peer review, testing, patches and bug reports. A lesson for us in that perhaps? However, some of the larger free software projects are often meritocratic or even authoritarian in their organising structure. The organisation around the Linux kernel itself is perhaps best described as a ‘meritocratic dictatorship’. It is collaborative in the sense that hundreds of patches and bug reports are submitted by large groups of people every week, but ultimately it is ‘Linux’, and Linus has the final say on what goes in and what does not. There is also a small scale meritocratic hierarchy of people appointed by Linus; those considered the best people for the jobs at hand based on the skills and knowledge they have demonstrated in previous contributions. It would be instructive to see how a kernel created in a more democratic fashion would pan out.

Crossover

There are currently some points of contact between the free software movement and the anarchist movement, as well as the wider anti-capitalist movement. One example is the ActiviX group, who arrange training days to help activists learn how to use GNU/Linux. There are also an emerging culture of ‘HackLabs’ in several European countries, open computer access in political spaces. One is currently being set up in Freedom Press book shop in London. Such work should continue and increase and the connections need to be drawn more. Anarchist theorists would do well to seriously consider the implications of the movement for anarchism as a social and industrial theory. For too long anarchist theorists have had to point to past examples of more libertarian ways of creating and maintaining complex systems. With the advent of GNU/Linux, we no longer need to rely on the past alone. Caution should be used in such analysis. As noted above, the free software movement is not totally anarchist, nor even fully libertarian. The facts and their implications should be studied with humility, seeking for learn more than we seek to teach. Also, we should not be overly concerned with interest shown in the “open source” movement by Troyskyist and other left groups. Small groups of free software programming groups jealously guard their independence by instinct.

Our favorite web sites use free software

It is also worth remembering that anarchists and activists in general use plenty of free software already (though we could stand to use it on the desktop more). If you are reading this article on enrager.net you are using free software as you browse, even if you used a Windows or Apple machine to access the site. You are using GNU/Linux and other free software every time you use the following web sites (only a few among thousands): Indymedia UK and international, Infoshop, flag.blackened.net, AK Press UK. Many of the community based online software systems, forums and open content packages for web sites are free software, including the Indymedia code bases.

Engels’ “steering a ship” argument

In his campaign against anti-authoritarian ideas within the First International, Engels asked in a letter written in January 1872 “how do these people [the anarchists] propose to run a factory, operate a railway or steer a ship without having in the last resort one deciding will, without a single management?” (15) Anarchists know full well that the way in which co-ordinated work takes place -authoritarian hierarchy or by freely co-operating groups electing recallable delegates where needed- makes all the difference. Now we have in GNU/Linux and the rest of free software movement many compelling examples of complex systems that have no leader, no central government or management (Linus may be the ‘dictator’ of the Linux kernel, but attempts no domination of other projects, even if that were feasible, which it is not).

The contradictory role of big business

Big businesses with a vested interest in GNU/Linux like Sun, HP and IBM often employ their programmers to adapt it to add a new feature which will make it more usable with one of their hardware products. The nature of the GPL, however, means that these modifications and additions must be shared with the community. Why would large corporations give stuff away for free? It should be remembered that these are generally companies who make their money from hardware, not software. Software is regarded as an expense. Being able to draw on the resources of the community is a big plus for them, and this is something that the Open Source movement has often argued to get them on board. This accounts for the corporate embrace of GNU/Linux and “open source” in recent years. Apple’s OS X uses as its core the BSD UNIX operating system. However, because BSD uses a more permissive non-copyleft free software license, the freeness of BSD did not ‘infect’ OS X and it remains non-free. The core of the OS (without the nice graphical Mac interface) is maintained separately as the free ‘Darwin’. This is a good example of why copyleft should be used to protect common property.

The Future

So anarchists should realise that although free software pushes the boundaries of freedom, ultimately, it works within capitalism and could never ‘infect’ the whole system. It does nothing about more general wealth-sharing, decision making in other industries (or even many in its own), or wider social relations. Although the concept of copyleft (expressed in the software world mainly by the GNU GPL) is revolutionary, we should not be fooled into thinking such concepts alone will lead to a free society.

At one point or another, the free software movement is going to meet its limits. Either limits in its own vision, limits imposed by the system of capital itself, or even limits aggressively imposed by threatened businesses. In fact, we can see the beginnings of this in current threats to free software: things like the Microsoft anti-GPL propaganda, SCO’s law suit against the Linux kernel and the advance of software patents in the US and threat of them in the EU. The limits are very real ones, especially when you consider that the Internet itself is, in the words of Chomsky “an elite institution”, with the majority of the world’s population not even having used a telephone. Free software would certainly be one part of a future free society. Although it can not fully thrive under capitalist conditions, like independent media, it should be encouraged to go as far as it can – pushing back the walls of our current prison.

References

1 Software whose source code can not be openly peer reviewed is more liable to compromise – either by third party attackers (so called “crackers”) or by the bosses of the institution that controls the software itself. A case in point is the software controlling the recently introduced touch screen voting booths in the US. PGP encryption is also an example of the importance of peer review in security software.

2 Or in the case of the Wombles last Xmas, not just to your mates, but to random people on Oxford street! GNU/Linux CDs were a part of the WOMBLES free shop in solidarity with the Argentinian social movements on Oxford street 22nd December 2002. See http://www.wombles.org.uk/news/article_2002_12_21_2158.php

3 John Lettice, “GPL Pacman will eat your business, warns Gates” – http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/19836.html

4 The Free Software Foundation, “Categories of Free and Non-Free Software” – http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html

5 The OSI group originated around about 1998, and started pushing the term “open source”. Ostensibly, this renaming of free software was to clarify the substantial differences between free software and other terms such as “freeware”. It is no secret that a closely related goal was to make it more appealing to corporate America. In this it has achieved no insignificant success.

6 http://vancouver-webpages.com/vanlug/1999-3/0475.html

7 The Linux Counter, “Estimating the number of Linux users” – http://counter.li.org/estimates.php

8 Richard Stallman, “The GNU Project” – http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html

9 The past tense is used here because the GNU project’s kernel (called the HURD) is now finally operational, though not yet mature.

10 Netcraft, “Debian Linux distribution 10 years old today” – http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2003/08/16/debian_linux_distribution_10_years_old_today.html

11 Netcraft, “October 2003 Web Server Survey” – http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html

12 The Free Software Foundation, “Some Confusing Words Worth Avoiding” – http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#IntellectualProperty

13 “An Anarchist FAQ”; Introduction – http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/intro.html

14 Graham Lawton, New Scientist. Cited in “SchNews of The World: Copyleft Hackers” – http://www.schnews.org.uk/sotw/copyleft-hackers.htm

15 The Marx-Engels Reader, p. 729, cited in “An Anarchist FAQ”, section H 1.11

Recommended web sites

The Linux Emporium
http://www.linuxemporium.co.uk
A good place to buy cheap (sometimes even gratis) GNU/Linux CDs if you do not have access to broadband.

AktiviX
http://www.aktivix.org/
Project to train activists to use GNU/Linux

Community/Linux Training Centre Project
http://www.fraw.org.uk/cltc/
Another group of GNU/Linux trainers

Freedom Pres Media HackLab
http://www.freedompress.org.uk
http://www.hacklab.org.uk
When the Freedom Press web site is up it will no doubt contain details of the new Media HackLab

Debian GNU/Linux
http://www.debian.org
One of the best technically and certainly the most libertarian distribution of GNU/Linux

Red Hat Linux
http://www.redhat.com
A corporate, but user-friendly distribution of GNU/Linux

DistroWatch
http://www.distrowatch.com
Provides good reviews on the different distributions

Savannah
http://savannah.gnu.org
One central point for development of free software. Should give you an idea of the amount of stuff out there.

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.wikipedia.org
A collaborative encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Covered by the GNU FDL

The OpenLaw project
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw

Further reading

Glyn Moody, “Rebel Code: Linux and the Open Source Revolution”, Penguin Press, 2001

The GNU Project and FSF website.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/
The philosophy section of the FSF site is vital reading on the reasons for free software.

Richard Stallman, UNESCO and Free Software
http://www.unesco.org/webworld/portal_freesoft/stallman_011001.shtml
A brief introduction to Free Software and GNU/Linux.

Introduction to Linux
http://linux.com/article.pl?sid=02/03/09/1727250
A good primer to GNU/Linux for complete newbies. No experience required!

Richard Stallman, “Why Software Should Not Have Owners”
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html
Seminal essay on the importance of freedom in software use and creation.

Copyright © 2003 Asa Winstanley. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. See the GNU Free Documentation License for more details: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html