20.
At the time Linux was developed, the dominant thinking among computer scientists was against a monolithic operating system operating out of a single kernel and in favor of a 'microkernel'-based system. MINIX, a microkernel system, was the primary competitor at the time. Torvalds consciously rejected this 'modern' thinking and adopted the 'traditional' model for Linux; see 'The Tanenbaum-Torvalds Debate,' in
21.
See the lists, 'Ports of Linux' and Linux Online, 'Hardware Port Projects' available at http://www.cyut.edu.tw/~ckhung/l/linux_ports.html (cached: http://www.webcitation.org/5J6iPa5rx) and http://www.linux.org/projects/ports.html (cached: http://www.webcitation.org/5J6iSED4b).
22.
Technically, it does not sit in the public domain. Code from these open source projects is copyrighted and licensed. GNU/Linux is licensed under the GNU GPL, which limits the possible use you can make of Linux; essentially, you cannot take the public part and close it, and you cannot integrate the open part with the closed; see Bruce Perens, 'The Open Source Definition,' in DiBona et al.,
23.
Daniel Benoliel, 'Technological Standards, Inc.: Rethinking Cyberspace Regulatory Epistemology,'
24.
Peter Harter, 'The Legal and Policy Framework for Global Electronic Commerce,' comments at the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology Conference, March 5–6, 1999.
25.
For an argument to the opposite conclusion, see Stephen M. McJohn_,_ 'The Paradoxes of Free Software,'
26.
I am grateful to Hal Abelson for this point.
Part III Notes
1.
For a related practice that focuses upon principles in context rather than application, see Andrew L. Shapiro, 'The `Principles in Context' Approach to Internet Policymaking,'
Chapter Nine Notes
1.
Justice Holmes himself called the wiretapping a 'dirty business';
2.
Ibid., 457 (Chief Justice William H. Taft: the obtaining of evidence by wiretaps inserted along telephone wires was done without trespass and thus did not violate the Fourth Amendment).
3.
Ibid., 471 (Justice Louis D. Brandeis dissenting; Justices Holmes, Stone, and Butler also filed dissents).
4.
There is an extensive debate about the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment and how it should be applied today. For the two camps, see Akhil Reed Amar, 'Fourth Amendment First Principles,'
5.