第 15 页

a program called Patch, which allows me to create a new file, a compact collection

of all the changes. That is called a patch file, and I can give that file to someone

else, and they can apply it to their copy of the code to see what impact that patch

has. If I have the right privileges to the server [which is restricted to a tightly

controlled oversight board], I can then take my patch and commit it to the repository

and it will become part of the source code. The CVS server keeps track of everything

and who sent in what... So you might have 'read access' to the repository but not

'commit access' to change things. When someone makes a commit to the repository, that

patch file gets e-mailed out to all the other developers, and so you get this peer

review system after the fact, and if there is something wrong, you fix the bug."

So how does this community decide who are trusted members?

"For Apache," said Behlendorf, "we started with eight people who really trusted each

other, and as new people showed up at the discussion forum and offered patch files

posted to the discussion form, we would

89

gain trust in others, and that eight grew to over one thousand. We were the first

open-source project to get attention from the business community and get the backing

from IBM."

Because of Apache's proficiency at allowing a single-server machine to host thousands

of different virtual Web sites-music, data, text, pornography-it began to have "a

commanding share of the Internet Service Provider market," noted Salon's Leonard.

IBM was trying to sell its own proprietary Web server, called GO, but it gained only

a tiny sliver of the market. Apache proved to be both a better technology and free.

So IBM eventually decided that if it could not beat Apache, it should join Apache.

You have to stop here and imagine this. The world's biggest computer company decided

that its engineers could not best the work of an ad hoc open-source collection of

geeks, so they threw out their own technology and decided to go with the geeks!

IBM "initiated contact with me, as I had a somewhat public speaker role for Apache,"

said Behlendorf. "IBM said, 'We would like to figure out how we can use [Apache] and

not get flamed by the Internet community, [how we can] make it sustainable and not

just be ripping people off but contributing to the process. . .' IBM was saying that

this new model for software development was trustworthy and valuable, so let's invest

in it and get rid of the one that we are trying to make on our own, which isn't as

good."

John Swainson was the senior IBM executive who led the team that approached Apache

(he's now chairman of Computer Associates). He picked up the story: "There was a whole

debate going on at thetime about open-source, but it was all over the place. We decided

we could deal with the Apache guys because they answered our questions. We could hold

a meaningful conversation with these guys, and we were able to create the [nonprofit]

Apache Software Foundation and work out all the issues."

At IBM's expense, its lawyers worked with the Apache group to create a legal framework

around it so that there would be no copyright or liability problems for companies,

like IBM, that wanted to build applications on top of Apache and charge money for

them. IBM saw the value in having a standard vanilla Web server architecture-which

allowed

90

heterogeneous computer systems and devices to talk to each other, displaying e-mail

and Web pages in a standard format-that was constantly being improved for free by

an open-source community. The Apache collaborators did not set out to make free

software. They set out to solve a common problem-Web serving-and found that

collaborating for free in this open-source manner was the best way to assemble the

best brains for the job they needed done.

"When we started working with Apache, there was an apache.org Web site but no formal

legal structure, and businesses and informal structures don't coexist well," said

Swainson. "You need to be able to vet the code, sign an agreement, and deal with

liability issues. [Today] anybody can download the Apache code. The only obligation

is that they acknowledge that it came from the site, and if they make any changes

that they share them back." There is an Apache development process that manages the

traffic, and you earn your way into that process, added Swainson. It is something

like a pure meritocracy.When IBM started using Apache, it became part of the community

and started making contributions.

Indeed, the one thing the Apache people demanded in return for their collaboration

with IBM was that IBM assign its best engineers to join the Apache open-source group

and contribute, like everyone else, for free. "The Apache people were not interested

in payment of cash," said Swainson. "They wanted contribution to the base. Our

engineers came to us and said, 'These guys who doApache are good andthey are insisting

that we contribute good people.' At first they rejected some of what we contributed.

They said it wasn't up to their standards! The compensation that the community

expected was our best contribution."

On June 22, 1998, IBM announced plans to incorporate Apache into its own new Web server

product, named WebSphere. The way the Apache collaborative community organized itself,

whatever you took out of Apache's code and improved on, you had to give back to the

whole community. But you were also free to go out and build a patented commercial

product on top of the Apache code, as IBM did, provided that you included a copyright

citation to Apache in your own patent. In other words, this intellectual commons

approach to open-sourcing encour-

aged people to build commercial products on top of it. While it wanted the foundation

to be free and open to all, it recognized that it would remain strong and fresh if

both commercial and noncommercial engineers had an incentive to participate.

Today Apache is one of the most successful open-source tools, powering about

two-thirds of the Web sites in the world. And because Apache can be downloaded for

free anywhere in the world, people from Russia to South Africa to Vietnam use it to

create Web sites. Those individuals who need or want added capabilities for their

Web servers can buy products like WebSphere, which attach right on top of Apache.

At the time, selling a product built on top of an open-source program was a risky

move on IBM's part. To its credit, IBM was confident in its ability to keep producing

differentiated software applications on top of the Apache vanilla. This model has

since been widely adopted, after everyone saw how it propelled IBM's Web server

business to commercial leadership in that category of software, generating huge

amounts of revenue.

As I will repeat often in this book: There is no future in vanilla for most companies

in a flat world. A lot of vanilla making in software and other areas is going to shift

to open-source communities. For most companies, the commercial future belongs to

those who know how to make the richest chocolate sauce, the sweetest, lightest whipped

cream, and the juiciest cherries to sit on top, or how to put them all together into

a sundae. Jack Messman, chairman of the Novell software company, which has now become

a big distributor of Linux, the open-source operating system, atop which Novell

attaches gizmos to make it sing and dance just for your company, put it best:

"Commercial software companies have to start operating further up the [software]

stack to differentiate themselves. The open source community is basically focusing

on infrastructure" (Financial Times, June 14, 2004).

The IBM deal was a real watershed. Big Blue was saying that it believed in the

open-source model and that with the Apache Web server, this open-source community

of engineers had created something that was not just useful and valuable but "best

in its class." That's why the open-source movement has become a powerful flattener,

the effects of which we are just beginning to see. "It is incredibly empowering of

indi-

viduals," Brian Behlendorf said. "It doesn't matter where you come from or where you

are-someone in India and South America can be just as effective using this software

or contributing to it as someone in Silicon Valley." The old model is winner take

all: I wrote it, I own it-the standard software license model. "The only way to compete

against that," concluded Behlendorf, "is to all become winners."

Behlendorf, for his part, is betting his career that more and more people and companies

will want to take advantage of the new flat-world platform to do open-source

innovation. In 2004, he started a new company called CollabNet to promote the use

of open-sourcing asa tool to drive software innovation within companies. "Our premise

is that software is not gold, it is lettuce-it is a perishable good," explained

Behlendorf. "If the software is not in a place where it is getting improved over time,

it will rot." What the open-source community has been doing, said Behlendorf, is

globally coordinated distributed software development, where it is constantly

freshening the lettuce so that it never goes rotten. Behlendorfs premise is that the

open-source community developed a better method for creating and constantly updating

software. CollabNet is a company created to bring the best open-source techniques

to a closed community, i.e., a commercial software company.

"CollabNet is an arms dealer to the forces flattening the world," said Behlendorf.

"Our role in this world is to build the tools and infrastructure so that an individual

-in India, China, or wherever-as a consultant, an employee, or just someone sitting

at home can collaborate. We are giving them the toolkit for decentralized

collaborative development. We are enabling bottom-up development, and not just in

cyberspace . . . We have large corporations who are now interested in creating a

bottom-up environment for writing software. The old top-down, silo software model

is broken. That system said, 'I develop something and then I throw it over the wall

to you. You find the bugs and then throw it back. I patch it and then sell a new

version.' There is constant frustration with getting software that is buggy-maybe

it will get fixed or maybe not. So we said, 'Wouldn't it be interesting if we could

take the open-source benefits of speed of innovation and higher-quality software,

and that feel-

93

ing of partnership with all these stakeholders, and turn that into a business model

for corporations to be more collaborative both within and without?'"

I like the way Irving Wladawsky-Berger, IBM's Cuban-born vice president for technical

strategy andinnovation, summed open-sourcing up: "This emerging era is characterized

by the collaborative innovation of many people working in gifted communities, just

as innovation in the industrial era was characterized by individual genius."

The strikingthing about the intellectual commons form of open-sourcing is how quickly

it has morphed into other spheres and spawned other self-organizing collaborative

communities, which are flattening hierarchies in their areas. I see this most vividly

in the news profession, where bloggers, one-person online commentators, who often

link to one another depending on their ideology, have created a kind of open-source

newsroom. I now read bloggers (the term comes from the word "Weblog") as part of my

daily information-gathering routine. In an article about how a tiny group of

relatively obscure news bloggers were able to blow the whistle that exposed the bogus

documents used by CBS News's Dan Rather in his infamous report about President George

W. Bush's Air National Guard service, Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post wrote

(September 20, 2004), "It was like throwing a match on kerosene-soaked wood. The

ensuing blaze ripped through the media establishment as previously obscure bloggers

managed to put the network of Murrow and Cronkite firmly on the defensive. The secret,

says Charles Johnson, is 'open-source intelligence gathering.' Meaning: 'We've got

a huge pool of highly motivated people who go out there and use tools to find stuff.

We've got an army of citizen journalists out there.'" That army is often armed with

nothing more than a tape recorder, a camera-enabled cell phone, and a Web site, but

in a flat world it can collectively get its voice heard as far and wide as CBS or

The New York Times. These bloggers have created their own online commons, with no

barriers to entry. That open commons often has many rumors and wild

94

allegations swirling in it. Because no one is in charge, standards of practice vary

wildly, and some of it is downright irresponsible. But because no one is in charge,

information flows with total freedom. And when this community is on to something real,

like the Rather episode, it can create as much energy, buzz, and hard news as any

network or major newspaper.

Another intellectual commons collaboration that I used regularly in writing this book

is Wikipedia, the user-contributed online encyclopedia, also known as "the people's

encyclopedia." The word "wikis" is taken from the Hawaiian word for "quick." Wikis

are Web sites that allow users to directly edit any Web page on their own from their

home computer. In a May 5, 2004, essay on YaleGlobal online, Andrew Lih, an assistant

professor at the Journalism and Media Studies Centre at the University of Hong Kong,

explained how Wikipedia works and why it is such a breakthrough.

"The Wikipedia project was started by JimmyWales, head of Internet startup Bomis.com,

after his original project for a volunteer, but strictly controlled, free