Concepts, Assessments, Subversions
Edited By Matteo Stocchetti
Emancipative Technology in Formal Education: The Case for ‘Free and Open Source Software (FOSS)
In a world where the widespread use of the Internet offers to many citizens the technological opportunity to actively participate in the creation of Cyber culture, downloading and using applications and software for different purposes, the use of privative software in formal education has no sense because it imposes unnecessary barriers and constraints on learning practices and the freedom of students. Based on the results of a pilot study, in this chapter I argue for the importance of Free and Open-Source Software (FOSS) as a suitable alternative model to foster innovative learning, democratic education and ultimately an emancipative pedagogy.
Discussing research in education technology, Selwyn and Facer (2013) argue for the need of a critical perspective capable of going beyond the mere description of “best practices” or the documentation of lived digital cultures as cultural studies offer. Going further is possible by evaluating and analyzing, instead of just describing or reciting.
In this chapter, and in an effort to take this suggestion seriously, I discuss the main problems associated with the use of privative software in formal education from a communicative perspective. In my approach, the unit of analysis is not the single user but the context of interaction and the outcomes resulting from it (Gómez-Diago, 2013a). As Lievrouw observes (2011), a ‘contextual’ approach is very needed not just in technology and education research but also in media research. In this way, people’s engagement with media can be conceptualized in terms of expression, organization, relations, and interaction rather than reception and consumption, as is usually the case. My main argument is that, in formal education, Free and Open-Source Software (FOSS) must replace commercial software, which I refer to here as ‘privative’ software because its use deprives users the right to see and to modify its source code, the right to install it in various devices or the right to distribute it. If users cannot control their programs, then it is the program and its manufacturer that control its users – which is the case when using privative software. The chapter describes the main advantages of the former and the disadvantages of the latter as experienced in educational practices in formal education. This study provides a framework for further research which ← 341 | 342 → can be oriented, for example, on identifying and evaluating Free and Open-Source Software (FOSS) to achieve different purposes in formal education.
My concern about the detrimental effects of the use of privative software in formal education began in 2011, when I was asked to teach the use of a privative software for vector graphic design to third-year students of Advertising and Public Relations at the University of Vigo in Spain. Since the price of this software was more than EUR 400 and well beyond the budget of most our students, I suggested teaching an open-source software for graphic vectorial design capable of performing the same operations as the privative software. The suggestion was rejected despite the fact that the professor responsible for the course agreed with me on the benefits of the alternative I suggested. Therefore I had to teach students to use the privative software. Unfortunately, however, because the price of this software is pretty high, the university did not have a legal version of this software for teachers, and students could not install it on their personal computers in order to familiarize themselves with its use in their spare time. This fact alone, the confinement of the learning experience, within the temporal and spatial boundaries of formal education, made the learning curve quite steep and difficult to tackle, and consequently the use of this software became a source of anxiety.
The difficulties and complications I encountered in teaching the software to the students inspired a pilot study (Gómez-Diago, 2013) based on an action research framework. The goal of the study was to identify the problems associated with the use of privative software in formal education and to help pupils address them. Action research in the classroom seemed a suitable approach because it allows the teacher to detect the problems connected with a given pedagogical model, to test the effect of alternative models on class dynamics, and to introduce and experiment with new didactical tools, etc. Teachers who conduct “action research” in the classroom have to critically evaluate their didactical methods and their perspectives in an effort to gain a deeper access to students, their experiences, their views and assessment of learning. As Sagor pointed out (2009: 10), by engaging in ‘action research,’ teachers subscribe to a professional ethic that ‘requires the professional educator to continuously ask, “How can my work be modified to produce better results”? Persisting with practices that do not succeed is the antithesis of professionalism.
For three months, I collected impressions in the classroom through direct observation and interaction with 41students who were divided into two groups which received 12 hours of instruction in privative software. To give stronger grounds to my first impressions of the nature and roots of the problems we encountered in the training programme, I designed an open and anonymous questionnaire to facilitate reflection and creative thinking (O’Cathain & J. Thomas, 2004). Fourteen students ← 342 | 343 → answered the questions about their relation with the software, and the type of knowledge they had acquired after the instruction.
My pilot study confirmed my concerns. The use of privative software in formal education limits students’ knowledge of computers, limits the learning environment to the classroom, and limits the types of skills gained by the students. A more detailed discussion of that study is available (Gómez-Diago, 2013a) Below I present a commentary on the opportunities for learning and innovation associated with the use of open-source software in education.
The privative software model: dependency, piracy and professional ignorance
The dependency of students on privative software they have been trained to use in the years of their education continues during their professional life, sometimes even when they are unable or unwilling to pay for it. According to Software Alliance, the software piracy rate in the world is 42%. On their website, this organization encourages users to denounce enterprises which use pirate software so they can punish them with economic sanctions. Those most directly concerned by the commercial damage of these ‘pirates’ however, have good reasons to be more flexible.
By enforcing the learning of privative software, educational institutions contribute to the “tolerance piracy strategy” (Heger, 2009), a strategy that Bill Gates admittedly used in his company in order to avoid pushing the users towards free software (Chopra, 2011). This ‘strategy’ effectively construes illegality as a better alternative to ‘choice’. In this strategy, for example, the widespread use of pirate software among small business is preferable to the enforcement of actions that may increase the popularity, diffusion and ultimately the competitiveness of alternative software.
The research conducted by Llyas (2008) about the Maldives suggests that the facility of access to pirated software there prevents people from using free software. In 2008, this country had no copyright law and this encouraged many software vendors to sell pirated versions of famous commercial software and many government offices to use pirated software. The use of Linux was very rare and pirate software so easily accessible that the emergence of a local community of software developers or locally customized software was effectively inhibited.
Chopra and Dexter (2011: 175–176) point out that exorbitant prices of much proprietary software do not necessarily restrict access to the software because copyright infringement of software is common and tolerated. From the perspective ← 343 | 344 → of an information justice, what is most troubling is the users’ dependency on the vendor proprietary software promoted by licensing terms. These authors describe what happened to the Philadelphia public school system in 2011 when Microsoft threatened legal action against the practice of installing Microsoft products on more computers than the licensing terms allowed. Under a Free and or Open Source Licence, the Philadelphia school system could have acquired the software freely and made unconstrained decisions about its use, installation and customization but also about whether it would support this software by purchasing service and support from competing outside vendors or by hiring and training IT staff to service and improve the software for the entire system.
The use of technology must be seen as a deeply social and political matter (Selwyn, 1998), because technology is far more complex than being “simply a tool” and it does not exist as a neutral or value-free assumption – “a wrong idea typically associated with commonsensical perceptions of technology” (Ferneding 2007: 1332). Students, professors and teachers are becoming ‘workers’ for privative software companies while at the same they are being expropriated of the results of their ‘work’. In fact, when they use any such products, they are unavoidably involved in the process of testing by using and commenting on it, hence contributing to the search for solutions to its problems and to the development of the software itself (Soler 2008: 15).
If to witness the adaptation of curricula to the learning of privative software may be upsetting, even worse is to see instances of social research which justifies its scientific character based on the use of privative software that in many cases has unaffordable prices and is accessible to just a few. In these instances, when research institutions are linking research and the use of privative software, the message they are sending is more about marketing than about knowledge, and more about exclusion than inclusion: scientific research can be done just by the few who can afford the purchase of that software. Instead of citing privative software as a way of giving authority to their research, researchers, departments and universities in general should be more interested in designing software, tools, devices and procedures which allow citizens to do things that would be more difficult to do without them.
Rushkoff (2010: 130–133) argues that America is falling behind most developed and many developing nations in computer education because most public schools do not teach programming. Kids learn how to use popular spreadsheet, word processing, and browsing software so that they can operate effectively in the high-tech workplace. But these basic skills will not help them adapt to the technologies of tomorrow. By contrast, kids in other countries – from China to Iran – are not wasting their time learning how to use off-the shelf commercial software packages; they are ← 344 | 345 → finding out how computers work. According to Rushkoff, programming is the sweet spot, the high leverage point in a digital society. If we do not learn to program, we risk being programmed ourselves.
Computer techniques have profound effects on all aspects of the disciplines they are applied to (Berry, 2011: 8). We can think, for example, about visual artistic creation, visualization of data or even literary creation, with the emergence of new literary forms based on hypertext possibilities.
All disciplines are being modified by the use of technology, and this is because their practitioners, that is the persons who construct disciplines, have access to technological devices, tools, and platforms that allow them to achieve actions which before were not possible or, at least, were too difficult to achieve. The Internet has carried the most important changes in how disciplines and formal education are built. Thanks to the possibility of being in touch with people who are geographically distanced, collaborative creation can be achieved with ease.
In an emancipative perspective, and in a way compatible with democratic ideology, formal education must be understood as a context of freedom where students are motivated to create and to access knowledge. If we constrain the abilities of students to using privative software, we are in fact prioritizing the promotion of that software over the development of the students’ skills. It is fundamental to be educated in a context where we can understand the software as an environment whereby we can achieve a diversity of goals by being aware of the multitude of software available, and of the differences between them. All educational activities – at school and elsewhere – influence the future of society through what they teach. So schools should teach exclusively free software, to transmit democratic values and the habit of helping other people – not to mention a future generation of programmers to master the craft! To ground education on privative software means to foster the dependence of the educated on the owner of this software, a practice that contradicts the democratic mission of public education (Lee, 2013). Introducing students to the use of free and open-source software will make them understand how culture and technology are linked, and how they can contribute to the development of both. As Lévy pointed out (2000: 5), the relationship between a technology (part of the cause) and a culture (which would undergo its effects) is not a direct one. Between the two there is a multitude of human agents who variously invent, produce, use and interpret technologies. When colleges and universities move to a Linux standard for academic computing, they become full participants in a growing movement to use open-source software as a means of achieving social justice worldwide. They become engines of open-source software development – and the results could make a genuine difference in ← 345 | 346 → helping to formulate effective remedies for the international inequalities in access to information technology (Pfaffenberger, 2000).
The use of privative software in formal education generates serious problems that, in turn, greatly affect the contexts of interaction in the classroom and beyond. Firstly, privative software is expensive and usually it can only be installed on one computer because what we buy is not the software but a licence. This licence, ‘furthermore is a ‘closed’ one: it does not allow the user to access the source code of the software itself. The developer of privative software hides the functionality of the software by distributing digital objects whose underlying design is opaque to their users (Lessing 2006: 54).
When the code cannot be accessed, transformed, or updated, etc., users have a relation of dependency with the manufactures. Until the manufacturer releases updates of the software, users cannot utilize it in ways other than the ones for which it was created. If the discussion about the importance of creativity and innovation in education is taken seriously, how can anyone believe that both those skills can be effectively developed if students (and teachers!) have to comply with software limitations dictated not by the affordances of technology itself but by the commercial interests of the company that manufactures the software?
As Rushkoft notes (2010), digital technology is a form of technology that depends on programming and on programming skills. In a digital age, emancipative learning requires learning how to make – rather than merely use – the software. The risk, otherwise, is that of becoming the software. It is not too difficult or too late to learn the code behind the things we use – or at least to understand that there is a code behind their interfaces. Otherwise, we are at the mercy of those who do the programming, the people paying them, or even the technology itself.
In this perspective, the popularity of privative software is unmotivated and its influence on curricula detrimental. If the goals of education are interpreted within an emancipative pedagogy, it is not reasonable to constraint the work, the progress and the knowledge of students through the use and dependency of privative software. The core of this type of software is fundamentally at odds with the values on which scientific practices and excellence are supposed to be based.
These programs are designed according to what Raymond (1998) defines as the ‘cathedral-builder view’ of programming. In this methodology, bugs and development problems are tricky, insidious and deep phenomena. It takes months of scrutiny by a dedicated few to develop confidence that you have winkled them all out. This leads to long release intervals and the inevitable disappointment when long-awaited releases are not perfect. By contrast, open-source software is created through the collective effort of different people and all the improvements, changes and corrections are done quickly because the source code is available and public. ← 346 | 347 → Raymond (1998) defines this style as ‘bazaar view’ and explains that this working methodology assumes that bugs are generally shallow phenomena – or, at least, that they turn shallow pretty quickly when exposed to the expert attention of a thousand eager co-developers, pounding on every single new release. Through this method, new releases are issued often in order to get more corrections, and as a beneficial side effect one has less to lose if an occasional botch gets out the door.
Cyberspace, cyberculture and the challenge of innovation
According to Internet Usage Statistics, by June, 30, 2012, there were 1,405,518,376 Internet users in a world which has a population of 7,017,846,922 – or an equivalent of 34.3%. The growth in the number of Internet users from 2000 to 2012 was 566.4%.
The communicative possibilities of the Internet affects the interactivity of new media, which as Schulzt notes (2004: 10), turns recipients into communicators, allowing them to establish and to maintain networks for different purposes. Taking into account that clear socio-economic differences exist in individuals’ predilection to produce rather than consume online content (Lewthwaite, 2011), and agreeing with Selwyn (2012) when he points out that it is idealistic to imagine social media as providing a level playing field for all, it is evident that thanks to the widespread use of the Internet throughout the world, the creative production made by individuals is more visible and has more possibilities to be recognized and incorporated into the industry.
New media technology is evolving rapidly, new media applications are proliferating and creative possibilities are multiplying. In the digital age, users’ network-building capacity supports the social capital that Putnam (2000) described in terms of connections among individuals, social networks and norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness (see the chapter by Melissa Harness & Sultana A. Shabazz in this volume). Hughes (2000: 294) cites a definition of learning coined by Wenger (1998) in which learning is understood as mutual engagement with others and participation in communities of practice which have a common enterprise or purpose and negotiate their own meanings and repertories. He argues that taking part in a learning community of practice involves identity transformation when members move from peripheral to full membership of the community. He illustrates that idea by explaining that a student does not learn physics (except perhaps by rote) but learns to think and to act like a physicist by engaging with a community of physicists: experts (through their texts), teachers and other physics students. ← 347 | 348 →
Innovation must be an objective not just for the enterprises but also for universities. The International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance (July 2013) acknowledge the role of formal education in innovation. Universities, in particular, are called upon to shape digital models of scholarly discourse for the newly emergent public spheres of the present era to model excellence and innovation in these domains, and to facilitate the formation of networks of knowledge production, exchange, and dissemination that are at once global and local. But innovation requires a space where active learning is possible and where students are not treated as passive receptors of information: not as mere users or ‘consumers’ of software but as agents who work in environments which are open to be used, modified, adapted and improved.
Free software movement exemplifies a form of organization of production and distribution within a knowledge economy based on common property, on innovation through open collaboration with the creators and on the private appropriation and commercial use of applications and products resulting from software development connected to this form. The point is not to abolish private property, but the privileges that block innovation and the distribution of wealth across mankind (Castells, 2005).
Non-privative software models and innovation
The approach to software development that generates free and open-source software is based on a non-privative model. The acronym FLOSS (Free Libre and Open Source) embraces both types of software and it is used to designate the outcome of motivated teamwork: the results of specialist work by many individuals, sharing an interest in a common project, for a variety of motivations, but without any single person or entity having the possibility to assert any right to exclude others from the outcome of the project or parts of it (Benkler, 2006: 6).
The social experience and practice of open source software projects teach us that users can create, produce, diffuse, provide user field support, update, and use complex products by and for themselves in the context of user innovation communities (Hippel, 2005). For authors such as O’Reilly, it is useful to see open source as an expression of three deep, long-term trends: the commoditization of software, network-enabled collaboration, and software customizability (software as a service). Free software is responsible for some of the most basic and widely used innovations and utilities on the Internet today (Benkler, 2006: 438).
By publishing software along with its source code, open-source developers establish a mutually encouraging network to correct each other’s mistakes, and ← 348 | 349 → improve each other’s work. Rather than competing they collaborate, and they do not hide the way their programs work. As a result, everyone is invited to change the underlying code and the software can evolve with the benefit of a multiplicity of points of view (Rushkoff 2003: 56).
eProperty in open source is configured fundamentally around the right to distribute, not the right to exclude (Weber 2004: 1–3). The practice of granting extensive rights to users through licensing dates back to the free-software movement that Richard Stallman launched in the early 1980s called Free Software Foundation to counter the trend toward proprietary development of software packages and the release of software without source code. Then, in 1998, several prominent computer hackers, including Bruce Perens and Eric Raymond, launched the Open Source Initiative. The social anthropologist of technology, Bryan Pfaffenberger (2000: 114) distinguishes the Open Source Movement from Free Software Foundation primarily on philosophical grounds. According to Pfaffenberger, the participants of the Open Source Initiative prefer to emphasize the practical benefits of its licensing practices, while the members of the Free Software Movement are more inclined to emphasize the moral importance of granting users the freedoms offered by both free and open-source software.
The main difference between the Open Source Initiative and Free Source Foundation resides in the type of conditions they impose for regulating the use of the software. Free Software advocates the unrestricted attribution of rights to the users. Its licences are designed to rule out the possibility that one software licensed as free software can be studied and used to develop privative software. The point of this is to make sure that anyone using the work of the community also contributes to developing improvements and additions that reach back to the community (Rajani, 2003: 25–26). By contrast, in the Open Source model, licences may allow users to study and use the code of given software to develop privative software.
Both models, however, clearly state the importance of making the source code available for study and use. Stallman explains that ‘free’ refers to the possibilities or to the actions which are available to users with this software: 1.the freedom to run the program for any purpose; 2. the freedom to study how the program works, and change it to do what you wish; 3.the freedom to redistribute copies to help your neighbour, and 4. the freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others. As Suber states (2012), while the notion of ‘gratis’ is used to mean the removal of price barriers alone, the notion of ‘libre’ designates both the removal of price barriers and of permission barriers.
The current open-source development model is rooted in the academic computer science of a decade or more ago. What makes open source dramatically more successful today, however, is the growth in the volumes and speed of circulating ← 349 | 350 → information made possible by the Internet. Open source has been born into a digital renaissance made possible by the Internet, just as modern service was made possible during the Renaissance by the invention of the printing press (Dibona, 1999). The Internet amplifies the possibilities for communicating, for creating and for sharing knowledge. Contrary to how the mass media work, the Internet is the first modern communication medium that expands its reach by decentralizing the capital structure of information, culture and knowledge (Benkler 2004: 30).
Depending on the objective, it could be useful having students working with social media. The knowledge tools that encourage and create social networks are fostered by professors of communication who encourage students to manage them and also to maintain their profile. Accordingly to Lanier (2010), however, sites such as Facebook originate standardized presences and anonymized fragments of creativity as products that might have fallen from the sky or been dug up from the ground, obscuring the true sources. To address this limitation and the important problem connected to it, teachers could familiarize their students with open source social media such as idiaspora, n-1, friendica, thimbl, identi.ca or kune. By inviting students to study and more extensively engage with these open tools, teachers will help them to understand their design more critically, and to see how, for example, the interface design of social media has an influence on the type of discourse generated by the users.
Users or used? Software and emancipation
Despite all the advantages that Internet brings to their users, sentences such as “The Internet as we know it today is dominated not by business but by users whose free communication prevails in cyberspace” (Feenberg, 2012: 12) are not close to reality.
In 2013, for the first time, Internet surveillance has become a major concern for citizens around the world. The Snowden documents show that the NSA (National Security Agency) runs surveillance programs through partnerships with major US telecom and Internet companies. Some of these relationships go back decades, others are more recent, established notably in the wake of the attacks of 9/11. The division inside the NSA that deals with collection programs that focus on private companies is Special Source Operations. According to the Guardian, the biggest single contributor to NSA’s intelligence reports is PRISM, a “downstream” program – which means the agency collects the data from Google, Facebook, Apple, Yahoo and other US Internet corporate giants. While the Guardian claims that NSA has direct access to their servers, the companies involved have hotly disputed this claim, arguing instead that they only comply with lawful requests for user data. ← 350 | 351 →
Media educator and activist Dan Guillmor (2013) expresses his concern about the fact we have become so accustomed, even addicted, to the easy-to-use convenience of Google and its peers that not enough of us will opt for genuine safety. He wishes that the marketplace would come up with more products and services that are easy to use, robust in function and designed for security from the ground. Media scholar Rushkoff (2010: 137) explains what is behind the easy-to-use convenience of most of the software and applications. The user-friendly interfaces hide an effort to make people dependent on the features provided by the software and to increase the distance between programmers and users. He compares the interactivity exercised by users who build a profile on a social networking site with the interactivity exercised by a person who sends a text message to a TV talent show, telling them which of their ten contestants she thinks sings the best. In both cases the ways in which we are allowed to interact have been programmed for us in advance.
Free and open-source software is not always user friendly and it is not always secure. However when it is developed in the ‘open’, with open bug trackers, open mailing lists, open governing structures, and open-source code, it is much more difficult for these projects to have a policy of betraying their users like Microsoft has (Lee, 2013). Berry (2011: 6) discusses the importance of the code for digital humanities arguing that its understanding is fundamental to approach the cultural production more deeply because computation is the key issue underlying the changes across media industries and economies. Considering that technologies and networks have the potential to reshape our economy, our ecology, and our society more profoundly and intentionally than ever before in our collective history (Rushkoff, 2010: 143), it seems wiser to get involved in this development.
The more people become involved in the design of commonly used software, the more these tools will end up being people-inspired.
There is no reason to continue using privative software in the academic context. Utilizing this software in formal learning generates contexts of interaction where users become slaves of the programs, firstly in the classroom, then in the workplace, and globally in our private context, where we innocently use tools that are actually using us.
In communication studies the existence of courses aimed to encourage students to create profiles on popular social networks are common. Opening a profile on social networks requires no instruction because the interfaces are designed so that ← 351 | 352 → there is no room for doubt. What is needed is to train students to carry the design of new devices and tools intended to satisfy different necessities, among them, the need to protect ourselves from the surveillance exercised by those using the ‘back doors’ and/or windows included in proprietary software.
The ideal of a society based on innovation requires schools and universities to teach innovation. But this cannot be done if the learning environment and the educational context are those shaped by the influence of privative software. Formal education should not become the place for the promotion of the closed tools created by companies which ask for a lot of money in exchange for licences full of prohibitions. An innovation-prone educational context must enable students to acquire knowledge and interest in designing their own tools and maintaining their security. If formal education is not used to motivate students to manage the source code of software, the companies who program will control all that we do, designing our contexts of interaction and having access to our privacy.
It is not by chance that Linux has no viruses. By contrast, when using other operating systems we must rely on powerful antiviruses which slow down our computer. For that reason it is not surprising that The United Space Alliance has switched from the Windows XP computers aboard the International Space Station to Linux, arguing reasons based on the need of having an operating system that was stable and reliable.
It is time that educational institutions switch to open-source and free software. This change must be made at all the levels of the institutions and especially in the classrooms and in the curricula because the students will build and contribute to the development of the Internet environment where we spend more and more of our time. This global system of networks can be used to progress, to be freer and for being more united and safer. But to be part of it without constraints, code must be accessible in educational contexts.
Baab, P. (2013). Video: Orwell’s ‘1984’ has nothing on the current surveillance state. November 5, 2013. Infoworld. Technology video worth watching. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from http://www.infoworld.com/t/internet-privacy/video-orwells-1984-has-nothing-the-current-surveillance-state-230259. ← 353 | 354 →
Benkler, Y. (2006). The Wealth of Networks. How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks.pdf.
Castells, M. (2005). Software Libre. La Vanguardia. 30/01/2005. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from http://www.rebelion.org/noticias/2005/1/10741.pdf.
Century, M. (2000). Open Code and Creativity in the Digital Age. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from http://www.nextcentury.ca/Papers/Code.html. ← 352 | 353 →
Chopra and Dexter (2011). Free software and the economics of information justice. In Ethics and Information Technology.13, pp. 173–184, DOI 10.1007/s10676-010-9226-6.
Coll, H. & Bri, D, García, M, Lloret, J. (2008). Free software and open source applications in higher education. 5th wseas / iasme international conference on engineering education (ee’08), heraklion, greece, july 22–24, 2008. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from http://www.wseas.us/e-library/conferences/2008/crete/education/education51.pdf.
Cusumano, M. (2007). The Changing Software Business: From products to Services and Other New Business Models. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from http://ebusiness.mit.edu/research/papers/2008.01_Cusumano_The%20Changing%20Software%20Business_236.pdf.
Dibona, C. et al. (1999). Prologue in Open Source. In Voices of the Open Source Revolution. Sebastopol: O’ Reilly Media.
Dourado, E. (2013). Let’s Build a More Secure Internet. The New York Times. Opinion Pages. October 8, 2013. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/09/opinion/lets-build-a-more-secure-internet.html?_r=0.
Feenberg, A. (2012). Introduction in (Re) Inventing the Internet. Feenberg & Fiesen (Eds.) Rotterdam:Sense Publisher.
Ferneding, K. (2007). Understanding the message of the medium: Media technologies as an aesthetic. International Handbook of Research in Arts Education Springer International Handbook of Research in Arts Education, Volume 16, pp. 1331–1354.
Gómez-Diago, G. (2013a). Identificación de consecuencias negativas de incluir la enseñanza y/o aprendizaje de software privativo en el aula universitaria. Estudio piloto. Razón y Palabra, 82. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from http://www.razonypalabra.org.mx/N/N82/V82/28a_Gomez_V82.pdf.
Gómez-Diago, G. (2013b). Aplicando el concepto de diseño de la comunicación para realizar investigación aplicada. Dos posibles vías: Diseñando herramientas de comunicación y metodologías de diseño. Brainflowing. II Congreso Nacional de Metodología de la Investigación en Comunicación. Asociación Española de Investigación de la Comunicación.Segovia, Mayo, 2–3. 2013. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from http://uvadoc.uva.es/bitstream/10324/3071/1/Aplicando%20el%20concepto%20de%20dise%C3%B1o.pdf.
Gómez-Diago, G. (2012). Cyberspace and Cyberculture. In M. Kosut (Ed.), Encyclopedia of gender in media. (pp. 58–60). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781452218540.n24. ISBN: 9781412990790. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from http://knowledge.sagepub.com/view/genderinmedia/n24.xml.
Grundy, S. (1982). Three Modes Of Action Research. In Kemmis, S. and McTaggert, R. (eds) (1988). The Action Research Reader (3ed). Geelong: Deakin University Press.
Grundy, S. (1987). Curriculum: Product or Praxis London: The Falmer Press.
Guillmor, Dan (2013). Google, Yahoo et al. have the power (and money) to fight back against the NSA. The Guardian. 1 november, 2013. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/01/google-yahoo-nsa-surveillance-reform.
Heger, A (2009). Software piracy and producers developer’s strategies. 3rd FLOSS International Workshop on Free/Libre Open Source Software. Department of Economics. University of Padua. July, 2–3. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from http://www.decon.unipd.it/personale/curri/manenti/floss/heger.pdf.
Hippel, Von (2005). Democratizing Information. Massachusetts London, England: The MIT Press Cambridge. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from http://web.mit.edu/evhippel/www/democ1.htm.
Holmstrom, H. & Jacobson, M. (2002). Using models in virtual world design. Proceedings of the 34th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Hawaii, IEEE.
Hughes, G. (2000). Social software: new opportunities for challenging social inequalities in learning? Learning, Media and Technology. Vol. 34, No. 4, December 2009, 291–305.
International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from https://en.necessaryandproportionate.org/text.
Internet Usage Statistics. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm.
Lanier, J. (2000). You are not a gadget. A manifesto. Alfred A. Knopf. New York 2010. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from http://r-u-ins.org/resource/pdfs/YouAreNotAGadget-A_Manifesto.pdf.
Lee, M. (2013). Encryption Works. How to Protect Your Privacy in the Age of NSA Surveillance. Freedom of the Press Foundation. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/encryption-works#trust.
Lessing, L. (2006). Code Version 2.0. Basic Books. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from http://codev2.cc/.
Lévy, P. (2001). Cyberculture. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Lievrouw, A. L. (2011). Preface in (Re) Inventing the Internet. Feenberg & Fiesen (Eds.) Rotterdam: Sense Publisher.
Llyas, S. (2008). FLOSS and the Computer Culture of the Maldivas (pp. 270–278), in Mansoux, A & De Valk, M. (Eds). GOTO10 & Open Mute. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from http://flossart.randomlab.net/pdf/FLOSS%2BArt.pdf.
Mitchell, J. (2013). With-Open-Platform-Stanford seeks to reclaim MOOC Brand. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from http://chronicle.com/article/With-Open-Platform-Stanford/142783/?cid=wb&utm_source=wb&utm_medium=en.
O’ Cathain, A., & J. Thomas, K (2004). Any other comments? Open questions on questionnaires, a bane or a bonus to research? BMC Medical Research Methodology, 4:25 doi:10.1186/1471-2288-4-25. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/4/25.
O’Reilly, T. Paradigm Shift. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from http://tim.oreilly.com/articles/paradigmshift_0504.html.
Pfaffenberger, B. (2000). Linux in Higher Education: Open Source, Open Minds, Social Justice. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/5071?page=0,2.
Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of the American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Rajani, N. (2003). Free as Education. Significance of the Free/Libre and Open Source Software for developing countries. Helsinki, Finland: One World Finland and KEPA. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/background/themes/access/free_as_in_education_niranjan.pdf.
Raymond, S. E. (1998). The Cathedral and the Bazaar. First Monday, Vol. 3, No. 3. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue3_3/raymond/.
Rushkoff, D. (2010). Program or be Programmed. Ten commands for a digital age. New York: OR Books.
Rushkoff, D. (2003). Open Source Democracy. How online communication is changing offline politics. Demos. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from http://www.demos.co.uk/files/OpenSourceDemocracy.pdf.
Sagor, R. (2009). Collaborative Action Research and School Improvement: We Can’t Have One Without the Other, Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI), January 2009, Volume 3, pp. 7–14. ← 354 | 355 →
Schnapp, J. and Presner, P. (2009). Digital Humanities Manifesto 2.0. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from http://www.humanitiesblast.com/manifesto/Manifesto_V2.pdf.
Sebastian, A. (2013). International Space Station switches from Windows to Linux, for improved reliability. May 9, 2013. Extreme Tech. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/155392-international-space-station-switches-from-windows-to-linux-for-improved-reliability?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=international-space-station-switches-from-windows-to-linux-for-improved-reliability.
Selwyn & N. (2013). The Need for a Politics of Educational Technology, in Selwyn & Facer (Eds) New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from http://www.academia.edu/4692005/The_need_for_a_politics_of_education_and_technology.
Selwyn, N. (2012). Social Media in Higher Education. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from http://www.educationarena.com/pdf/sample/sample-essay-selwyn.pdf.
Selwyn, N. (1998). Education and Technology. Key issues and debates. New York, London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Soler, P. (2008). Artists and Free Software. An Introduction (14–17) in FLOSS + Art. Poitiers. France: GOTO10 & Open Mute. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from http://flossart.randomlab.net/pdf/FLOSS%2BArt.pdf.
Stallman, R. (2013). Why Free Software Is More Important Now Than Ever Before (09.28.13). Wired. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/09/why-free-software-is-more-important-now-than-ever-before/.
Stallman, R. (2002). Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman. Edited by Gay. Free Software Foundation 59 Temple Place.
Suber, P. (2012). SPARC Open Access Newsletter, issue #164 Retrieved 23 December 2013 from http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/06-02-12.htm.
The Digital Humanities Manifesto 2. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from http://www.humanitiesblast.com/manifesto/Manifesto_V2.pdf.
The Guardian. NSA Files. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/nov/01/snowden-nsa-files-surveillance-revelations-decoded#section/1.
Thu Hien, T.T. (2009). VNU Journal of Science, Foreign Languages 25 (2009) 97–106. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from http://tapchi.vnu.edu.vn/nn_2_09/b4.pdf.
Vardi, V. M. The End of The American Network Can the Internet be liberated from government meddling? Communications of the ACM, Vol. 56 No. 11, Page 5. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2013/11/169021-the-end-of-the-american-network/fulltext.
Weber, S. (2004). The Success of Open Source. Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, England: Harvard University Press. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from http://www.cui-zy.cn/Course/Courses2011/LRR/StevenWeberSuccess_of_Open_Source.pdf.
Directories of Free and Open Source software.
List of free and open-source software packages. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_free_and_open-source_software_packages.
The Free software directory. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Main_Page. ← 355 | 356 →
Open Source Initiative. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from http://opensource.org/.
Open Source Living. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from http://osliving.com/.
Floss Foundations Directories. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from http://flossfoundations.org/foundation-directory.
Free and Open Source Software
Blender. 3D creation for everyone, free to use for any purpose. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from http://www.blender.org/.
Font forge. Outline font editor. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from http://fontforge.org/.
Gimp. Bitmap image editor/creator. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from http://www.gimp.org/.
Gimpshop. Image editing software. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from http://www.gimpshop.com/.
Inkscape. Vector image editor/creator. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from http://inkscape.org/index.php?lang=es.
Irfanview. Photo manager with some editing and plugin ability. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from http://www.irfanview.com/.
Minepaint. Graphics application for digital painters. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from http://mypaint.intilinux.com/.
OpenSCAD. Software for creating solid 3D CAD models. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from http://www.openscad.org/about.html.
Pencil. Animation/drawing software to create traditional hand-drawn animation (cartoon) using both bitmap and vector graphics. http://www.pencil-animation.org/.
Scribus. Desktop Publishing. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from http://www.scribus.net/canvas/Scribus.
Synfig Studio. 2D animation software. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from http://www.synfig.org/cms/.
Audio, Video and Web editors
Amaya.Web editor. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from http://www.w3.org/Amaya/.
Audacity. Audio editor and recorded. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from http://audacity.sourceforge.net/.
Avidemus. Video editor. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from http://avidemux.sourceforge.net/.
Kdenlive. Video editor. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from http://kdenlive.org/features.
Arkos. A project to help users self-host their websites, email, files and more. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from https://arkos.io/.
Cytoescape. Network Data Integration, Analysis, and Visualization in a Box. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from http://www.cytoscape.org/.
Jap. Anonymous proxy. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from http://anon.inf.tu-dresden.de/index_en.html.
MediaPortal.Listen music & radio, watch video’s and DVD’s, view, schedule and record live TV. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from http://www.team-mediaportal.com. ← 356 | 357 →
Pure Data. Visual programming language. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from http://puredata.info/.
VirtualBox. Cross-platform virtualization application. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from https://www.virtualbox.org/.
Free and Open Software Social Media
diaspora. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from https://joindiaspora.com/.
friendica. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from http://friendica.com.
identi.ca. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from https://identi.ca/.
kune. Retrieved 23 December 2013 http://kune.ourproject.org/.
n-1. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from https://n-1.cc/.
thimbl. Retrieved 23 December 2013 from http://www.thimbl.net/. ← 357 | 358 →