You might think that Apple holds both [the open web and the App Store] in equal esteem, but
its release of Safari 5 shows that Apple has less regard for publishers on the Web than it does for publishers (and developers) it wants to entice to come to the App Store.

And the App Store is becoming its own little mirror-reflection of the Web. You’ve got content from news providers, you’ve got social networking, you’ve got games, RSS readers—the list goes on and on. You’ve also got, courtesy of Apple, a 100 percent Apple-owned, Apple-powered advertising platform called iAds.

…

in the end we’re left with a) an open platform [Safari] where Apple is willing to toy with Web publishers, modify their content presentation, and suppress their ads, and b) Apple’s curated, closed platform, where everything is done by Apple’s rules or it’s not done at all.

Fisher is honing in on Safari’s new Reader feature, a space Arc90 has been treading for some time. So it’s somewhat synchronistic that Arc90 echoes the original frustration with Apple’s anti-open web model (though not it’s Reader) in the blog post, “Why We Built Readability” comments,

…publishing finds itself looking elsewhere to solve the puzzle of distributing and monetizing. Magazines like Time, Wired and Popular Science have decided to invest in delivering purchasable “packages” of their content that work on Apple’s iPad.

…

For us, the Web is the right bet. The notion of tethering content delivery to a particular proprietary platform or hardware device is admitting defeat.

To be clear, I am no longer a full-time freelance web developer. Indeed, I haven’t been a full-time web developer for a number of years, though I do still take projects on the side.

I did, however, think I had enough info to write out the following rather lengthy answer, which I hope to refine and turn into a lesson page later on this semester. There are quite a few better sources to turn to than I, and there have been a few recent articles and books on this subject, but here’s how I framed this particular answer in a way that hopefully walks the student through my thought process and tips them off to at least a few of the bigger picture items that must be considered sooner or later:

First, you need to decide if you’re going to charge hourly or lump sum. I prefer the latter, and I think clients do too.

Even so, I still start by calculating how much I need to be earning per hour–this is a figure I keep internally, and don’t share with clients.

Then, start adding upwards.

For instance, now that you’re working freelance you’re considered to be self-employed by the US Government, and will need to add about 30% for Federal taxes on top of everything else. (Make sure you put that 30% in a separate bank account!) What about State taxes? That varies state-to-state, so check your local codes.

There’s also a matter of other costs you’ll eventually need to roll in to your charges, especially if you look at doing this full time: What about Internet access, computers, software, electricity — these don’t come free! Do you need this work to pay for benefits for you/your family (health insurance, dental, life, etc)? What about advertising (if any) or time spent drumming up business? These need to be absorbed, too.

I’m going to keep it simple in this example and exclude those costs, and I think you probably don’t have to worry too much about this when you’re first starting up–especially if you’re doing freelance in addition to another job. However, be sure to consider these costs later after you move your business forward.

So if that the take-home amount is, say, $15/hour (which is not too bad for someone just starting out–most of my student developers get less than that) first add 30% for taxes, rounding up to $20/hour.

Then, figure that if you were doing this full time you’d be working at least 40 hours a week at least 4 weeks a month. This gives you a number through which you can absorb business costs on a per-hour basis by simple division. So if I’m working from a home office my internet, electricity (for just my office), computer upkeep might add up $160 a month, which is convenient because it means I just add another dollar to my hourly rate. Etc.

The next number to determine is tougher. How many hours will the project take you? Be realistic, and include meeting times. The best way to know for sure is to have tracked your time on projects in the past. I’ll give you just one example: I wrote XHTML and CSS for someone’s resume the other weekend, which turned out to be a 3 hour job including the initial meeting, and some minor experimentation with CSS 3’s @font-face property at the client’s request. Then I spent an hour testing it across browsers and making minor adjustments. So 4 hours for 1 page of content.

In this case we just needed one page, but in sites with multiple pages using templates will make things go faster. Because of this I usually charge on a first-page, additional-page basis, if that makes sense.

At any rate, it’s common to undercharge early on by not accurately estimating the time involved. And that’s OK early on, because you’re learning! But learn from your mistakes, and track your hours, so that in the future you can be more on-target and provide good service at competitive rates. Consider using a project management or time-tracking tool to help you with this.

Another practice I’ve heard others use in the past is to take my estimated time for a project and double it. This is based on the presumption that we always underestimate how much time tasks take us. I think this is true initially.

So now I know my per hour rate ($21), and I’m confident that for a media-free (text-based) static page it takes me about 4 hours. So I might charge $80 for that first page, and, using that first page as a template, charge $20 for each additional page. Now we’re starting to have a basic formula!

Oh, but what if you have to do visual design? Logo design? Will it take you 20 hours to come up with a good visual design? 40? 60? What about changes the client will inevitably request? Certainly you want to include the client at each step, from thumbnails to comps to finished versions. Heavy involvement early on will reduce the likelihood of conflict and frustration later.

Now if Javascript or PHP come into it, we start talking big money. Not just because it takes longer to develop, but because you must work with other people’s web servers, you must be secure, your code must not break on any browser, you must case-test for a number of different user scenarios, etc.

Don’t be afraid to ask yourself if you need to outsource tasks where your skills are not yet adequate. This is a good way to ensure your client gets what they are paying for–and can save you time in the long run. For instance, if I had a client needing a Flex app, I’m not going to spend 200 hours on it when a skilled Flex developer could do it in half that time. Sure, I have to pay them, but sometimes you can barter your skills for theirs.

Finally, make and maintain a master list of services you could provide with a dollar charge next to each, i.e. Basic web page production (HTML & CSS): $200 first page, $50 each addtl page. MySQL database set up: $50 per table, limit 30 fields. etc. I keep my own Excel spreadsheet with as many options as I can think of, and I modify this as I learn more about my own time, resource expenditures, and costs.

That’s it. As I said, this was just an e-mail I kicked out to a student, and this omits important info on contracts and agreements, but it’s a big topic, one which I expect to reflect upon and revisit in this or another post.

Now like the iPhone/Touch the iPad can use thousands of “apps”– miniature applications developed solely for use on iPhone/iTouch/iPad, and sold through the Apple store. What’s always been disconcerting about the app development process is that Apple controls not only the specifications for apps, but also restricts what apps are made available for use on their product, censors content, and even denies what technologies can be used to produce such apps.

Apple has the right to do all this, of course–it’s their device. Even though the approach out-M$s Microsoft, Apple’s restrictions on production and content of the apps is only one side of a larger problem. What really concerns me is how Apple’s app model will impact digital content on the open web, and I’m not talking about Flash.

The Web as an App

We’ve seen already a number of apps that replicate core functionality of web sites. We’re starting to see more apps produced by content providers as a supplement to their existing web-based content (e.g. Wired, NPR, WSJ). But how long until this supplement supplants the web-based stream? How long until consumers are hooked into fee-based access to this content under the illusion that it’s only available through the app?
I believe Apple has been rather insidious, if clever, in their iPhone/iPad app model, wherein the closed nature of their system requires a kind of fake innovation in the development of “new” apps that do little more than their web-based cousins; certainly little more than what’s already possible with a web browser and a little creative use of standards-based web languages. Instead, these appear to be little more than an opportunity for approved providers to elicit fees in new ways from end-users.

Don’t get me wrong: I’m all for businesses finding new ways to make money by improving service or a product, but is that what we are getting here? The drive to develop web-based products as apps seems entirely backwards, for we already have the one tool we need to facilitate mobility of both content and services: the standards-compliant web browser. What technologies do we need? Not C, C++, or even Flash, but how about HTML, CSS, Javascript, XML, and PHP? How about the open web standards that have facilitated the information access revolution we are experiencing?

Now a “special” path to mobile device development is nothing new; even the W3 tried to sell us on HDML rather than alternative CSS and minimalistic but semantically correct XHTML. But I think time has proven that this is wasted effort in the face of a broadly-accepted, dually-purposed web site constructed on sound principles of web design and utilizing creative applications of open technologies. Even NPR seems to prove this point by the fact that it has not only released it’s own iPad app, it’s also reworked it’s web site to be “iPad-friendly” for those who don’t want to download the (free) app. And at first glance it looks like the web site provides the same essential features.

Enter Blackboard

As expected, in an attempt to capitalize on the iPad buzz and finally make good on years of broken promises for mobile accessibility, Blackboard has unveiled its iPad app, which

recreates the course experience of Blackboard Learn™ … and lets students check grades and assignments, add discussion board comments and blog posts, email instructors and classmates

How stunningly innovative! I surely couldn’t do any of that on a mobile web browser?

I probably rehash this example too often, but I remember sitting in a session at a WebCT conference 5 years ago that was supposed to reveal WebCT’s innovations in mobile delivery of content. Turned out the WebCT rep had nothing to share, but hoped to take ideas from the audience. Disappointed, I turned to my Palm Treo phone and did some grading through Blazer on Moodle. Though the HTML, CSS, and Javascript of Moodle was still disappointingly primitive at the time, it was just good enough that the weak Blazer browser could handle it, and demonstrated the power of using open web standards.

Michael Feldstein suggests that this sort of “innovation” will promote the iPad itself, saying, “if I were a student or faculty member heavily using Blackboard and thinking about buying an iPad, I might find this app to be an additional motivator to buy one”. I bet Bb is hoping the reverse of this will be true: that by providing all their students with an iPad colleges like Seton Hill and George Fox will create a scenario that fits just right with their particular e-learning solution, which is “the industry leader” with full support for “mobile devices”.

This restrictive piping of information that we currently take for granted on the open web is of greatest concern to educators, perhaps, because it has the potential to retard the development of new models of learning. I don’t mean “learning by doing”, though iPad’s failure to support creative production is notable (Jeff Jarvis writes, “It turns us back into an audience again”); I mean particularly developing models that encourage increased learner self-regulation and networked direction along variable learning paths. Such models require access–both broad and deep–to information and depend upon content aggregation, parsing, and re-dissemination. These capabilities have only recently begun to be realized through the open web, thanks in large part to web standards. What schism might the apps model cause in this new standard of information accessibility? What locks and limitations may now encrust upon the ideals of the open web?

.post img { max-width: 100%; }

This prevents the sort of thing we often see when an image is slapped into a blog post without being resized especially for that design. Here’s an example this just popped up in my Google Reader:

In addition to preventing IMGs from breaking out of the box (or, worse, growing the box) this can be applied to other elements as well. In the case of my themes’ CSS I also include OBJECT (and, just to be safe, EMBED):

.post img, .post object, .post embed { max-width: 100%; }

With the entrance of HTML 5 one can imagine adding/replacing AUDIO and VIDEO in this list of selectors.

I’m thinking about this today because on Twitter Jeffrey Zeldman RT’ed Stephanie Hobson quoting Ethan Marcotte:

This is a fine solution, and reminded me that just last week I was talking with colleague Ken Woodward applying max-width in a more generic fashion–more generic, even, than to all IMGs:

div * { max-width: 100%; }

This is very broad, of course, and could cause problems in a number of particular designs, however I’m thinking the principle is still valid, particularly as it applies to inline elements, for the W3 reminds us:

If an inline box cannot be split (e.g., if the inline box contains a single character, or language specific word breaking rules disallow a break within the inline box, or if the inline box is affected by a white-space value of nowrap or pre), then the inline box overflows the line box.

Why wouldn’t I just write the rule without the DIV ancestor? Most elements that I need to control naturally fall within a DIV, and this limitation helps me feel safer, though I haven’t done enough testing to see how when/where it might fail. I am certain there is probably not enough specificity to override width problems that may be caused by miscalculated pixel widths of directly targeted descendant elements (i.e. DIVs), but those should probably have been done in percentages anyway. If specificity is a problem, adding a relevant parent CLASS or ID to the selector could probably solve it.

To be clear, we don’t really know what a model PLN looks like, or how it works, or if it’s efficient; we may not even know what the difference between a PLE and a PLN is. It may be that the one thing we can say definitively is we don’t know what a PLN looks like, for any two are unlikely to be the same. It may be that we want a PLN to resist being reified. When I think of a PLN/PLE I try to keep it open-ended; I conjecture that it is shaped by habits formed in the accomplishment of daily tasks, is connected to resources for discovery of new information, and is fostered by social relationships that may be authentic and trusting or merely incidental, built by one-to-one/one-to-many communications. Many of the facets of a PLN–but especially the social aspects–are increasingly open to the world.

I think we know what a LMS looks like: it is typically a monolithic, institutionally-controlled system that provides user accounts and digital space for the tasks of teaching and learning. A LMS is likely to allow file storage and redistribution, private and public communication, user tracking and logging, assignment management, timed/semi-secure assessment, and so on. Even more so than a traditional classroom, a LMS course environment is nearly always closed to the world.

Jon hit most of the primary strengths and weaknesses of each already, but I wanted to add or expand the list a little, but really just take this chance to brain dump and play both sides of a still relevant issue:

LMS Strengths

1. One-stop shopping. Not only do instructors build everything in one place, students can reach all aspects of the course in a single silo (except in the case of ePacks). Related: tools look and act similarly.
2. Bred by educators. Features are based on feedback and requests from a community of educators (theoretically).
3. Attention of ed tech market. Not only to CIOs attend to education-centric software products, third-party companies (textbook publishers to advanced communication tools such as Wimba) build content and products to work with the LMS.
4. Many models of academic use are available as examples or objects of criticism, especially in fully online courses.
5. Potentially greater latitude in using third-party materials under Fair Use or TEACH act. At any rate, many vague, fuzzy, or even illegal uses of third-party material by faculty are masked by closed system.
6. A closed environment–the metaphorical “walled garden”–may encourage students to freely express themselves.

LMS Weaknesses

1. LMS companies seem prone to buy-out, and thus may “pull the rug” out from adoptive institutions.
2. Adoption often requires licensing, which may inhibit switching, or may impel adoption of new versions.
3. Quality of third-party products and integration is often poor, inhibiting access and blemishing the experience.
4. Improvements, features, and fixes are historically are slow.
5. Design may encourage outdated, limiting, or less effective teaching practices.
6. With the exception of Moodle and Sakai, most LMS are closed source (in spite of Blackboard’s claims to be “open”).

PLE Strengths

1. Tools are based on “real world” needs, uses, and practices, and are more likely to be “authentic”.
2. Tools are likely to be coded or scripted according to broadly adopted standards.
3. Stability may be based on community adoption and support as well as financial viability.
4. Students may engage with communities of practice—real experts operating in their profession.
5. 50 Million Elvis Fans Can’t Be Wrong. Unable to rely upon corporate contracts or other adoption criteria, Web 2.0 tools rely on continued user support and expanded adoption.

PLE Weaknesses

1. Few models or case studies to use as examples or objects of criticism.
2. Tools often require terms of service agreements peculiar to the product company.
3. Likely not designed specifically for education.
4. For interoperability or data harvesting data must be both open and standardized.
5. Related to institutional control of data, data may be impermanent.
6. Some individuals may disdain open publishing or prefer to maintain privacy.

[wave id="googlewave.com!w+BXMquPMuA" bgcolor="#ffffff" color="#000000"]

This Wave was embedded with the wavr plugin for WordPress. In beta testing I was able to get my wave ID from the URI, and made the wave public by adding public@a.gwave.com.

Having some experience examining both projects prior to this review, I brought in the following generalized opinions:

• MIT: broad, but shallow -many courses with marginal amount of content and activities
• OLI: deep, but narrow – few courses with significant content and activities constructed for learning

The motivation for these directions seems clear: MIT OCW seeks to reinforce itself by providing semi-useful, translucent access to content from each and every existing course. OLI seeks to define itself as a provider of in-depth, quality, online learning experiences. UNESCO’s OER Wiki describes the two projects as follows:

• OLI “adds instructional design grounded in cognitive theory, formative evaluation for students and faculty, and iterative course improvement based on empirical evidence”
• MIT’s OCWs “convey the parameters of the course’s subject matter and pedagogy, ideally representing a substantially complete set of all the materials used in the course”

MIT’s French 1

French 1 from MIT OCW is comprised primarily of a syllabus, calendar, readings list, and assignments list based on the textbook Parallèles–a textbook that the syllabus almost fails to mention. the navigation is find and click, but simple enough to learn and use.

The syllabus reflects the fact that this is an existing course that has been “photocopied” for the MIT OCW project–instructions and expectations are restricted to registered students. For instance, it references the MIT Language Learning and Resource Center — a resource unavailable to distance students.

The course site provides PDFs of instructions for in-class activities. Otherwise assignments simply walk learner through textbook activities. Online resources are tacked on to the end almost decontextualized from real learning patterns.

As I opened separate pages for the materials, I wondered, why not combine assignments with readings into calendar as one big course guide? There seems to be no usability rationale for current architecture, except that it fits a single MIT OCW template.

You can download (presumably all) course materials; each index page of PDFs or other content features the CC By-NC-SA license.

OLI’s Elementary French 1 Online

OLI’s French 1 course’s subtitle, “Open and Free: Jan – Jun 09″, immediately reinforces OLI’s assertion that these are full courses to be taught by instructors, or taken by students. The content confirms that this is a complete online learning experience: the structure provides enhanced linear navigation using a combination of tabs and in-page hyperlinks. I found the navigation is somewhat similar to Moodle’s and I wondered if it may have been based on this LMS originally. Aside from a couple broken links, the content itself seems to be fully-fleshed out learning materials, richly media-enhanced with no textbook needed. The content pages include text, images, and video with inline Flash-based q&a activities for self-learning.

Like the MIT course, OLI’s French 1 included a number of external online learning resources, however these came in context at the beginning of the course, and thus I was more inclined to click on several to investigate how they might enhance what was to come.

There does not seem to be a way to easily download all course materials at once, though they are clearly marked CC By-NC-SA on each page. This brought me to a question re. the Flash files: if I download the SWFs and crack them, essentially converting them to FLAs, is that acceptable use under the applied CC By-NC-SA license? Presumably yes, as the source code is inseparable from the finished product.

MIT’s Logic 1

MIT OCW’s Logic 1 course utilizes a web site architecture that is very similar to French 1, ensuring that user learnability of the web system is high. In addition to the basics of syllabus, calendar, and readings this course provides PDFs of lecture notes, which provide surprisingly good, text-book like information and examples. Indeed, I read through several of these and got at least the “feel” for the course.

OLI’s Logic and Proofs

As a user trained to recognize shifts in my scent of information, the first thing I noticed in Logic and Proofs is that this course site’s navigation system was inconsistent with the French 1 navigation system. This is not to say that the alternative navigation is illogical, only that the change hurts my head.

This course features introductory movies that orient the learners to the subject, with a media-enhanced transcript for alternate learning styles. A note on my personal preference: for a subject like this, I prefer text with images over video.

The main content of the course is primarily text, but notably enhanced with relevant learning comprehension and self-assessment questions that open in new window (they didn’t in French) with a separate look. Because of this, Logic seems to be quilted together from 2 different systems.

I have to say that symbolic logic has always captivated me, and while the MIT OCW Logic course intrigued me, the completeness and linearity of the content in the OLI course kept me interested and engaged. As I was indulging in one activity I thought, “I should be getting college credit for this!” Upon investigating this impulse I found that not only does OLI provide instructions for instructors and learners, it provides a means by which students can use the OLI web site to receive credit through their home institution. Talk about mashing up your education. Brilliant!

MIT’s Paradox and Infinity

Similar structure to previous MIT OCW courses–enough so that I see a very predictable pattern here. Readings refer to a standard textbook and (usually “closed”–few available online) articles, as well as problem sets — PDF available for self-challenge (however, notably absent is any electronically mediated method of receiving feedback–automated, community-based, or otherwise).

Interestingly, the course site provides hyperlinks to (discounted) purchase via Amazon.com; does MIT get a cut as a way to offset production costs?

OLI’s Physics With the Andes Workbench

OLI Physics features similar navigation and structure to Logic 1, which is unfortunate as I believe OLI’s French 1 had the most modern and intuitive nav system so far. This OLI course is highly activity-based; lesson information (primarily text, but some video) is immediately taken up into “Learn by Doing” activities use Andes tutor software, available for download and installation on Windows (I couldn’t get it running on Ubuntu through WINE).

Again, I found elements of other OLI courses: complete content, linear construction, self-learning activities and assessments. I am not overstating my impression when for a fleeting moment I thought about quitting my job and returning to student life; I am envious of this and future generation of students who can make their own schedules with flexibility provided by the Internet, and I regret to admit I probably got away with a lot simply by exchanging seat time for credit. If personal responsibility is adhered to, the accountability and outcomes of online learning may be higher, and achieved more efficiently.

Aircraft Systems Engineering

MIT OCW’s Aircraft Systems Engineering course site follows the structural pattern of the other MIT OCW courses (syllabus, calendar, readings, etc), with one notable enhancement: video of class lectures. Listed under lecture notes, the video components make this the most compelling MIT OCW course reviewed so far. Fairly rough Real Media video of in-class guest lectures by experts in the field are provided with PDFs of lecture slides, and MP3s. On Ubuntu I couldn’t locate the RM codec I needed to view the video, but did give the audio files a listen, and these were high enough quality to download and bring on bus rides or road trips. Combined with the slides this makes an interesting, remixable OER.

Prior to embarking on this particular task I had generalized these two OCW projects as being about shallow breadth (MIT OCW) or narrow depth (OLI). My reviews supported this earlier generalization if the primary quality objective is prêt-à-porter OER. With respect to learner value I considered an additional analogy: these 3 MIT OCW are like Polaroid snapshots of authentic MIT courses, scanned in and uploaded to bear the MIT brand; these 3 Carnegie Mellon OLI are more akin to planned, staged, shot, enhanced, and sequenced for online learning, and specifically created to define the OLI project (not the other way around).

www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KsEQnOkTZ0

Richard references Johnathan Harris, so you might want to check out his web site here.

The following table is adapted from CreativeCommons.org:

Name	Characteristics
Version 3.0 Licenses:
Attribution
CC By. Usage requires citing, referencing of the creator/source. For OERs this is the most “open” license, in my opinion. Unlike Share Alike (see below), it does not mandate any particular license on subsequent adaptations or derivations.
Attribution-NoDerivs
CC By-ND. Usage additionally mandates that no derivative works or adaptations may be made. For OERs I think this is most applicable when a creator is concerned about losing the integrity of the original work if adaptaions, derivations, or remixes are made.
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs
CC By-NC-ND. Usage additionally mandates that no commercial use will be made of the work, whatever that means. This is for paranoid creators of OERs, or those who legitimately want to protect the integrity of their work..
Attribution-NonCommercial
CC By-NC. See above. I think this is an underused license in OERs, as it stipulates non-commercial usage but doesn’t limit adaptations to using the same license.
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
CC By-NC-SA. Usage additionally requires that any derivatives, remixes, or adaptation of the work be licensed under the same Creative Commons license. This seems to be the most common CC license for OERs, as it stipulates that all uses are non-commercial, presumably “for educational purposes only”, and preserves the open-ness of the work and any and all future derivatives.
Attribution-ShareAlike
CC By-SA. See above. This is a common CC license for OER where the creator wants to forever preserve the open-ness of the work and all derivatives.

Additionally, there are two notable licenses in draft on the Creative Commons wiki:

Creative Commons Zero (CC0)

According to Creative Commons, Creative Commons Zero (or CC0)…

…is a protocol that enables people to WAIVE to the fullest extent possible under applicable copyright law all rights they have and associate with a work so it has no (or minimal) copyright or neighboring rights restrictions attached to it.

In the US we typically call such works “public domain”, but some writers (e.g. Terry Hancock in FreeSoftware Magazine) have noted that public domain is not a license at all, while CC0 will be.

Creative Commons Plus (CC+)

Creative Commons Plus (or, CC+) is simply an existing Creative Commons license plus “some other agreement which provides more permissions” or, perhaps, requirements. For example, Creative Commons refers to a commercial license “tailored for specific uses with specific names of copyright holders”.

Commentary: I like the idea of both of these additional licenses, as Creative Commons has made the idea of sharing works more accessible and understandable, but is not yet sufficiently encompassing for all uses. Plus and Zero seem to fill the gaps, and for open education might provide creators and institutions with flexibility while still conforming to the Creative Commons label in such a way that basic usage is more instantly understandable (without reading through paragraphs of legalese).

A Brief History of the Internet,Part 1

Internet Map. by Matt Britt, Wikicommons

In the beginning was cyberspace, a dark, unknown void, whose depth and breadth were untested. Beyond this void were multitudes of isolated instances of archived information, crudely organized, but primitively connected, narrowly accessible, and not easily reproduced.

Then the Internet was born, and soon would come days when baud modems populated the lands. And the internet begat baud modems, which begat dial-up servers, which eventually begat BBS servers for trading song lyrics and shareware, and FTP servers for sharing text files and games. Thus the sharing and consuming of niche information multiplied throughout many lands.

From amongst these early adopters were born the elite nerds, and many rejoicing in the magic of the networks let their hearts harden against Copyright, which was the law. There were many who read the works of the Three Philosophers, Asimov and Dick and Gibson, and fashioned themselves as cyberpunks. And there were many who beheld visions of shareware, and the coming of open source. Ten, seeing how the people who were not 1337 suffered, soon the elite nerds opened the gates of the Internet to the masses of the world, and with Mosaic and Navigator ushered them into the wilderness.

The masses found and consumed the information, and it was good. And the masses authored, and created, and it was better. Yea, even through the beneficence of ad-riddled sites such as Geocities the peoples’ voices grew. Creators shared the information that they had with consumers, and consumers often shared it as well, whether the creators liked it or not, for all was public. And some who would not share did so anyway, for they were ignorant, and had no Google Analytics to track visitor data.

Then one day the tempter, a two-headed serpent, came and whispered in the ear of the creators, “If it’s publicly available on the web, how will you make any money?”

So the creators saw that they were naked, and sewed themselves footers with character entities such as ©, and limited their software to 30-day demos. And the works of many creators were hidden, or else ignored, and throughout the land many foul things were uttered against creators.

With his second head the tempter whispered to the consumers, “Why should you pay for that song if you can get it for free?” Thus the consumers were emboldened, and made Hotline, and Napster. And throughout the land their actions were labeled a sin against the creators.

Thus the tempter sowed enmity between creators and consumers, and enlarged their feud by running sensational TV reports on the local news.

There were in this land, living amongst the creators and consumers, philosophers who said, “Behold, we have open source, and GNU GPL for your software.” But the consumers compared it to commercial products which they downloaded from warez sitez, and found them lacking. And so from their long lines in front of the only computer in the office with a CD burner, they mocked these philosophers, saying, “Dream on” and “Get a life”, and turned their backs on the idea of open source, and paid tribute to commercial software companies.

But not all was lost, for the philosophers swayed some of the people, both consumers and creators saying, “Walk this way”, and in their words were prophesies of the future.

Then the age of Microsoft came to pass, and their products were good, or at least better. But the power of Microsoft grew swiftly, and soon the prince CEO was convinced by the whisperings of the tempter. And he consumed many lands, and many commercial products, and the might of his lawyers was made know, for they defended attempts to overthrow it’s great power, and and hurled insults and threats against the followers of open source.

Many who had mocked the open source philosophers had bowed down to Microsoft, and Adobe, and Corel, and idGames, but in private they continued to distribute and download warez. Those among them who had the power zipped these products, and with archives which spanned across 132 floppy disks, they enslaved the other consumers, and tempted them to hunt down passwords from pay-to-click ad links on their web sites, or else suffer at the mercy of Microsoft’s OEM distributions.

In these days there was heard a great and barbaric scream from atop the mountain where the music producers dwell, yea even the great and abominable RIAA, for they had fallen sick in their revenues, which depended on buying albums with 12 songs, but only one good one. But they persisted in their ways, and did not follow the digital path though the consumers demanded it of them. When they were confronted by their follies they lashed out, striking at consumers with one hand, while miming false promises with the other. Thus many fled the RIAA and it’s lawsuits, but many more were trampled, or made examples of. And contempt for these copyright holders grew.

Microsoft continued to weild it’s mighty power, even unto the courts of the lands, and it ran radio advertisements offering gold to those who would turn in the keepers of the warez, which were also called pirates. Thus more consumers sought the philosophers of open source, or at least their software.

And Microsoft began pushing out beta versions as final releases, and there was much wailing amongst the consumers, and many cried, “Why must we suffer under this beta version? Shall we not then cleave to open source?”

The philosophers of open source gathered followers from many lands, and creators collaborated through CSV, so that the whole was greater than the sum, and they proved their valor with Linux, and Apache, PHP, and MySQL. They gave the people distros such as Mandrake, and there were rumors in the land that an office software suite was coming, and it required no CD key, and it would be pure, for it held within it neither advertisments nor spyware.

There was also in this land scholars who dwelt behind the armored walls of the ivory tower, and students who dwelt below them in walled gardens. They saw this struggle and knew the pain of the consumers, for they felt the burden of costly textbooks, and publisher contracts, and cumbersome ePacks. They, too, were confounded, for they needed to create, consume, and reuse content. They had patronized the lawgivers, and though they had been given the TEACH act, the law was incomplete, and so yet they feared the wrath of the Copyright holder.

The open source philosophers knew of the sufferings of the creators and the consumers, the scholars and the students, and their numbers grew. Amongst them rose a few with good intent who would collaborate, and with tools for licensing, organizing, and sustaining the work, could liberate the people. For they knew that a new hunger was growing, one which could only be fed by a freedom both to take and to publish, both to share and to remix.