Source Code and Binary

Computer programs have two major sets of code that are substantially different in function. “Source code” is the human readable content which was written by a programmer and which many other programmers are capable of adapting for their own needs when it is provided. “Binary code,” on the other hand, is read by the computer and can not be edited by a person. When Intellectual Property is applied to computer programs, ownership and possession of code restricts programmers from accessing the “source code” of a program and forces them to the use the binary code as provided. “While hackers see the spread of free software as socially beneficial because it allows a diverse range of ‘others’ to deploy their software … the primary significance of FOSS is personal: it is something which protects the ‘food’ for them to ‘hack on’” (Coleman, 2004). FOSS is a strategy to keep source code freely accessible which, as we shall examine, has provided an alternative ideology of creative production for fields far beyond the software world.

Copyright Gets Hacked

“Using copyright as its vehicle, the copyleft places copyright literally on its head and in the process demystifies copyright-s “absolute” theory of economic incentive. The copyleft says, we are not the passive “subjects” of an almighty, unchangeable law, but actually can create the law to serve us for other ends: in the case of FOSS, that of free speech” (Coleman, 2004).

The legal ground in which the FOSS movement has its roots is composed of a set of unique maipulations of copyright law which are sometimes referred to as “copyleft.” The most important of these is the GNU General Public License, or GPL. “The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software–to make sure the software is free for all its users” (Free Software Foundation, 1991). The basic requirements of the GPL license are that code can be altered and freely distributed under the condition that you include all the code, particulary “source code” you first received, and documentation of the authors and changes made. Further, you must always extend the rights given to you on to those to whom you distribute work. This assures that no one is able to make insignificant edits to code and then copyright the work as their own. The GPL has worked with amazing success and has never been discredited in court, primarily because of the the fact that one must accept its terms in order to make any changes to the code itself. This simple “hack,” or creative twist, to existing copyright law has been instrumental to the continued success of the FOSS and has inspired a host of other “copyleft” concepts in the arts to which we will return later.