Chapter 5

Brechtian Economics

and software for the masses

Financial subsidies played a crucial role in the economics of theatrical productions during Brecht’s time in Germany, despite what many authors and playwrights would rather believe. Seldom were projects undertaken for altruistic reasons. The subsidization of any theatrical production required first underwriting the costs of the script and then paying the performers, stage hands and the host of other personnel needed to stage a play. Reserving the theater space itself sometimes proved to be an additional financial burden. For most theatrical undertakings, including many non-commercial productions, monetary support is required. Brecht’s plays were also not exempt from this fact. Though he did give the impression of living a bohemian lifestyle,[1] he still required financial assistance in bringing his plays to the stage. While in America he was able to find employment and help from friends who subsidized his writings.[2] But, in the end, Brecht required some form of compensation for his work and for those engaged in his acting troupe.

On account of his earlier experiences with his Lehrstücke Brecht desired a renaissance in theater and initiated a reformation in theater production that was not so dependent on theater goers and financial subsidies. With the creation of the Berliner Ensemble in East Germany later in the 1950s Brecht saw the realization of this goal. His appeal to the East German government for support resulted in the procurement of his own acting company. The establishment of the Berliner Ensemble introduced a system of patronage for his theatrical corps allowing Brecht to support them financially, while retaining the autonomy necessary to implement the methods identified with his work.[3]

Financial subsidies also play a crucial role in the economics of the computer software industry. Like the theater, software has production costs. Expenses for software generation involves time and labor costs. However, computer programmers who support the open source movement do not subscribe to the economic agenda of their predecessors. Those who contribute to the open source movement forego all labor costs. Time costs are also reduced since most programming is done either as a hobby or in the programmer’s free time away from work. While most do not expect financial compensation for their product, they do believe that their software belongs back in the public domain so all can benefit. Open source programmers dispel the myth that something free cannot support itself financially. Instead, it is expected that open source computer code will eventually supplant closed source proprietary code. In other words, as Brecht’s reforms of stage and play enabled him to eventually gain financial support and independence and attract a new generation of theater goers, computer code is also reinventing the market place and making obsolete many of the formerly accepted norms. This is attractive to new programmers as well who find liberation from expensive proprietary formats in the openness of the code.

This chapter covers some basic concepts of Brechtian theater and open source software economics. It examines some of the basic principles Brecht employed in producing his plays and in financing their productions. It also researches in closer detail the former beliefs behind software marketing and how open source contributions are not only becoming more accessible to all users, but are creating a new marketing schema for generating revenue. This includes dispelling false myths surrounding the use and purpose of computer code.

Early Theater Economics

Brecht’s concept of economics of the theater and that of the open source software industry are not all that dissimilar. They mirror each other in many ways both in approach and implementation. Each attempts to wear down the conventions of regular productions, whether it is a theatrical production or the production of closed source commercial software. Brecht sought to disassociate himself from the contemporary performance practices. In his opinion, the theater was a costly form of entertainment for the upper classes that had no intrinsic instructional value. Brecht, instead, wished to make theater more accessible to all from both a monetary as well as content perspective. Brecht’s Lehrstücke were designed with this intention in mind. As shown in chapter 1, his learning plays were meant to especially instruct the youth. Chapter 4 further clarified this fact that much of Brecht’s works were pedagogical in design with the purpose of educating the performers and activating the audience.

Open source software refutes the monopolistic practices of companies that sell the encoded bits and bytes of their developers in a similar manner, though their objective is not characteristic of the socialist goal that Brecht espoused. Still, as will be mentioned later, much rumor abounds in regards to the socialist aims of the open source community. Open source software can be interpreted as a “service-based commodity”. According to Eric Raymond,[4] proprietary computer software is regarded as a capital good, when, in fact, it is a service-based commodity.[5] Most computer software, particularly that which falls under the open source categorization, no longer exceeds computer hardware costs. What was once a major portion of a company’s budget is no longer a factor. It has become a service-based commodity due to the fact that most incurred costs come from support issues rather than from purchasing.

Both open source software and theatrical pieces are marketed in like manner; their function is primarily focused on the end-user, with regular users supplying minimal interaction with the programs or performance. Theirs is normally a passive role. They are allowed to accept the information without making extensive modifications to core elements. With some programs users add their own interpretive data, but this does not affect the core application. If they neglect to save their work and restart the machine, the core application runs without alteration. In regards to theatrical performances little is required on part of the listener or attendee, depending on the subject or context of the program. Seldom is a dialogue initiated between viewers and performers in stage productions. Computer programs likewise operate without little interaction and require negligible active input from users. Most programs perform a set function and either display user input or carry out an action determined by the end user. Here, too, the program generates little, if any, feedback from the user. This commodity, whether it is a performance on stage or the digital bits of a software program, is either passed along freely or users are charged a rate sustainable by the market.[6]

The economics of theater during the early 20^th century contained many holdovers from older theatrical practices and attitudes. Regular theaters were supported mainly by the local cities and German states, while private theaters were offered little public support. New institutions and clubs were appearing during Brecht’s time in pre-War Germany that supported the growing influence of jazz and cabaret. The stage, meanwhile, continued in older performance techniques and practices. Theater was considered a diversion for the upper classes. Very seldom did plays draw upon the working class for its material. The late-19^th-century production of Die Weber, for example, was perhaps one of the earliest theater performances to actively portray the average worker in a theatrical production. Additional developments such as the establishment of the Freie Volksbühne in 1890 in Berlin helped to bring art and culture to the average people. This new theatrical format fought against the censorship of the more popular authors such as Hauptmann, Ibsen, Strindberg and others. This movement’s objective was to bring these authors’ works to the open stage and to a wider public distribution. The motto “Die Kunst dem Volke” (Art for the People) tried to popularize artistic works so that more people could attend the theater at a reasonable price.

Even the manual laborer, who up to that time had been excluded from most productions due to cost, could now afford attending a production.[7] He also became the subject of the action on stage. Instead of plays dealing with the aristocracy, audience goers could now view and even relate to many of the subjects portrayed on stage. These steps forward in theater development helped set the stage for Brecht’s own reformist tendencies. Brecht, who first worked with Max Reinhardt and then Erwin Piscator from 1919-1930, took many of the radical advances from his mentors and remade them into his own.[8] The changes in the economic makeup of Brecht’s theaters can be attributed to these earlier movements. The popularization of films and their low admission cost also helped drive down the high-ticket prices associated with stage plays. Brecht points out this fact in his work, Der Messingkauf, that theaters now had to compete against a more inexpensive form of entertainment. However, he is also quick to point out that the ultimate purpose of the theater is to both entertain as well as instruct, “Jedoch verliert das Theater mit ihr keineswegs seine alten Funktionen der Unterhaltung und Belehrung, sondern erneuert sie geradezu”.[9] Theater troupes had to compete against the lower-priced film industry for the public’s entertainment. The state theater could no longer charge the extravagant sums they had previously collected from the elite. Performances sprang up in smaller theaters, some of which hosted only a few dozen audience members. These became the more frequented stage plays of the proletariat. Rather than paying for the glamour associated with the Staatsoper or the Staatstheater, these smaller show houses could solicit enough of an audience that they remained profitable and could thereby produce repeat performances. Even the title of Brecht’s famous piece Die Dreigroschenoper was reflective of the cost of plays during his time, where even the poor could afford a three-cent theater performance. The title of the play also refers to the morally bankrupt society of Brecht’s world, where good behavior and morality were esteemed at only three cents.

Brecht also utilized a mobile theatrical form called agitprop, which allowed it to be set up in any location depending on its audience. It required only a minimum of scenery and props. From out of the street performance, Brecht furthered the political movements and moved them to the stage. Here in more regulated and stable settings he could better control the actions of the actors and bring in additional props. In this controlled stage setting Brecht could also manipulate the physical environment experienced by audience members. This included replacing the comfortable seats theatergoers were accustomed to with hard benches. Doing so Brecht distanced the users from the bourgeois settings they may have been familiar with and placed them in situations requiring their attention. It was during this phase of his experimentations (1928-1932) with various “learning plays” and alienation strategies he was also able to keep normal staging costs down by using older furnishings and reducing the normal overhead spent on stage and set costs. (In some of his later plays the costs of production were quite extravagant and equaled, if not exceeded, the staging expenses of other theater productions.) The text within his plays required the same method of focus. Brecht kept the audience in mind and used context and vocabulary normally intended for the relatively unschooled. Brecht captured the greatest audience for the least amount of money. While other theaters had to attract a large number of spectators and create a large viewership to support the overall costs of the performance, Brecht could offer a comparable production as a playwright to a much smaller clientele and still remain lucrative.[10]

This same principle of lowering costs by utilizing highly efficient, yet low cost materials, also applies to the use of current open source software. Because technicians who have a steady income or are employed by a firm write the main body of available software, they do not incur large overhead costs. The larger companies themselves also defer the learning cost normally involved in researching these technologies, either by writing their own in-house software or by passing along the additional cost to the consumer. Many companies subsidize any extra training needed by their developers, who use these skills for their own open source projects. While helping to increase the productivity of their employees by improving their education, some programmers are engaged in open projects on the side that sometimes indirectly reflect the same proprietary research they are doing for their company. Meanwhile, software companies invest millions into research and development of new software while remaining proprietary.

The Advantages of Sharing

The open source movement is an ongoing endeavor to bring to the general populace the resources developed by others in the form of computer code. Just as Brecht extracted from a common body of knowledge and used the writings of others in his own literary and stage performances, so too does the open source movement rely on a receptive exchange of information to improve existing code and applications, or the programmers’ finished works. In conjunction with the Free Software Foundation (FSF), open source advocates release code to the community. This can be code they have written themselves or that has been released into the Public Domain. Other users and developers improve upon this code over time. This brings about several returns on the initial investment by the coders. First, the code is continuously re-worked and made more stable through submissions for improvement in the form of patches along with improved coding. Next, security vulnerabilities are quickly found and rectified. The chances of a malicious cracker compromising open source application are further reduced. The current adage as professed by commercial marketers, who discourage the distribution of open source code and promote rather the sale of closed source binaries, that “security through obscurity” is the best option, simply does not stand up in practice when it is compared to the security of most open source applications.[11] However, it could be equally argued that because the source is open to all, hackers can expose and exploit any security risks or weaknesses inherent within the system.[12]

What is not stated by commercial software supporters is that vendors have little incentive to patch holes in existing closed source systems.[13] This draws away man-hours and skilled labor from creating their next closed software release. Users are locked into an embattled situation with the vendor as they await fixes. They can only hope, in the meantime, that their application or operating system remains secure until the required patch or fix is released. According to the open source advocacy web page,[14] there are a number of reasons why open source makes sense not only for businesses but for regular users as well. With open source code, users and developers can apply or create the fix themselves; by changing the actual text in the code and then recompiling or creating a new binary or by soliciting help from the community.[15] It is a fairly common occurrence that when a security issue is discovered in open source applications a fix is available within a few hours, either from the author or from the code’s maintainer, or from contributing developers. With closed, proprietary code users sometimes wait weeks for a patch release. In some instances vendors may ignore the problem altogether and instead encourage users to pay for an upgrade or the latest release. Even then this new proprietary software may not resolve the security issue. Either way, creators of closed source applications have an opportunity to pocket additional revenue by not serving the best interests of the community.

In opposition to the ideals of the open source community, Brecht did share a commonality to this particular aspect of closed software programs. As stated earlier, he would often rework an existing play or production and encourage theater goers to pay again for the same play as previously shown but with moderate revisions. Here Brecht adopted the role of the proprietary programmer by encouraging audience members to pay for what he termed a “new production”. Rather then being truly open like contemporary source code and giving away revised performances, he continued to charge for modified adaptations. This became a general practice of Brecht’s even more so later on in life and was adopted by his daughter as well. The rights to produce Brecht’s plays comes at a high cost depending on the manner of production and the projected theater attendance.

Communal Acquisition

The success of open source software is measured by the contributions of the people who improve upon the code and share the modifications with others. It is only in this way applications find acceptance in the community and are adapted into various Linux distributions and other open source operating systems, such as FreeBSD’s incorporation into Apple’s Darwin release that builds on the open source model. Brecht, on the other hand, wanted to be credited for his own works. There are documented instances where the source of his works is attributable to another author,[16] but for the most part he considered his published works proprietary.

The very act of sharing the code has brought many to the belief that open source is nothing more than socialism, and that the use of such software will eventually bring about the downfall of the world economy.[17] This cannot be substantiated, yet a simple query on the Internet uncovers a plethora of conspiracy theories regarding the use of Linux and software licensed by the GPL.[18] At Microsoft’s 2000 financial analysts meeting, Steve Ballmer, President of Microsoft, compared Linux (and by extension, all open source software) to communism. He said, “And it (Linux, or open source software) had, you know, the characteristics of communism that people love so very, very much about it. That is, it’s free.”[19] Though his remarks are slanted in favor of closed software code, there remain antagonists towards the free and open software movement who identify with and routinely accept comments such as these as truth. The communal nature of open source stresses the sharing of costs and errors.

The open nature of this type of software may have some socialist tendencies because the end user feels entitled to the same rights, privileges and access to the code itself as does the developer or any commercial vendor using open source. No one party is favored over the other, nor can one limit access to any portion of the text of the code. However, open source also encourages the active participation of all involved since everyone does benefit, including competitors and opponents. The only stipulation many authors and contributors ask from others is recognition for their contributions. The notoriety game takes precedence over any form of compensation.[20]

When Brecht settled in Eastern Germany at the end of the Second World War it was partly to pursue this same type of recognition from peers and glean support and input from colleagues. He found that there he had control over the development of his plays. Given the opportunity to form the Berliner Ensemble and to manage the content of what could be portrayed on stage, Brecht was able to produce many of his earlier plays in the format he had envisioned before the Second World War.[21] Just as he did earlier with his learning plays, he adapted the ideas and contributions of others into the body of his own writings, in spite of the obstacles and criticism he faced during the early 1950s.

Along with his desire for control over his stage productions, Brecht also found in East Germany a government closest to his own beliefs and not as commercially oriented as he judged the prevailing attitudes in the West to be. With the backing of the East German government Brecht found a political establishment he could use to his advantage. Once again, his theatrical theories found form on stage, and Brecht continued to apply his own concept of Marxism to his literary technique. According to James Lyon, before he ever discovered Marxism, Brecht “surrounded himself with associates … who discussed ideas, fed him material, rewrote his own, and generally helped to ‘produce’ his work. Had the Marxist concept of the collective and collective productivity not existed, Brecht would have invented it”.[22] Loosely interpreted, Brecht was an advocate of open sourcing the literary efforts of others and integrating them into his own work. He attracted talented writers into his circle, who later became “collaborators, translators, informants, promoting partners and catalysts for his writing”.[23] Though these relationships were not necessarily founded on a deep personal friendship, some of those who worked with Brecht found it flattering to be engaged by him. However, others later turned against Brecht. While working with John Wexley on the film Hangmen Also Die, Brecht was given only a minor recognition for his contribution and was recognized merely as the author of the original story along with Fritz Lang. Wexley successfully defended his claim to the screenplay of the movie and sued Brecht for this right.[24]

A tactic commonly used today among burgeoning coders is recruiting the most talented programmers to a personal project and by stroking their egos one ensures a steady stream of feedback, bug reports and improvements to the code. As Raymond puts it, “the pool of talent available to be recruited into open source cooperation for any given product category is limited, and recruitment tends to stick”.[25] In other words, once someone has become a disciple of your software application and has invested time and effort in seeing it perfected, chances are slim that he or she will leave for a competing enterprise. In fact, it is to their advantage to remain with a single project or collection of projects for some duration in order to recoup on the time invested.

Many Brechtian scholars argue that Brecht exploited the efforts of others in order to further his own personal reputation.[26] Whether Brecht selfishly used his fame to glean information from others or not, it seems clear that Brecht’s associates willingly imparted their time and talents and expressed no sense of exploitation and harbored no ill will towards him later in life.[27] Even those who personally disagreed with him on many occasions still expressed a deep respect for Brecht after his death. Eric Bentley, for whom Brecht caused much frustration, wrote a profound tribute to his former associate upon Brecht’s death in 1956, acknowledging that “I had the experience of being his political enemy and his personal friend, and I must record that the friendship was given precedence over the enmity.”[28] Brecht’s collaborative friendships often may have been built on a close affinity for his person, but more importantly were established out of others’ respect for his ideology and for the literary expertise they gained working with Brecht in a collaborative effort.[29]

Brecht was also skilled at keeping literary relationships on an impersonal basis. This is substantiated by many, in spite of the allegations by John Fuegi that Brecht collaborated with his lovers on many of his works and claimed much of their work as his own. Brecht did not let disagreements damage his interaction with contributing authors and was uniquely skilled at keeping differences of opinion depersonalized and letting others know they should do the same. In many ways, Brecht operated as the ultimate project maintainer. Though he did create many enemies of former collaborators such as Bentley and others, he kept many of his other “contributors” appeased while gathering information he then integrated into his literary productions. The overall success of the work took precedence over any personal feelings. Few of his co-authors felt any sense of mistreatment.[30]

This same sentiment forms one of the basic tenets of a successful open source project. There are customs that all “hackers” or esteemed coders adhere to when dealing with each other on a cooperative task.[31] According to Raymond, a good open source maintainer achieves his ends, not through coercion or with a dictatorial approach, but rather through a set of social norms better known as a “gift culture”.[32] The true measure of one’s worth is based not on what one acquires, but on what one gives to others. The greater the gift to fellow peers or to the community, the greater one’s social value. His or her intrinsic worth as a developer or manager increases peripherally. Brecht was happy to be the recipient of the gifts freely shared with him. His gift to others was to tie the contributed elements and texts together to produce great works.

Brecht innately abided by the same guidelines espoused by open source advocates while engaged in mutual writing efforts with others. Generally, those with whom he worked felt they gained from the experience just as Brecht benefited from the association. Though their contributions may not have been expressly recognized, their own skills and peer recognition improved on account of the working relationship. Though several experienced frustration while working with Brecht, he possessed “something” that engaged their literary creativeness and kept them coming back for more.[33] In the open source community, a user often finds one program he or she prefers over another and begins to form a relationship with the respective developer. That user’s name may never appear as a contributor nor may his or her input appear within the text of the code, but he or she may have contributed to the overall work and perhaps improved the final product as a result of that feedback.

Brecht and Copyright Issues

Brecht’s use of others’ works and his outright plagiarism makes him both infamous in the eyes of some and legendary to others. He did not hesitate to lift, sometimes verbatim, the text of another’s manuscript and claim it as his own.[34] This was sometimes content that either he or someone else translated from another language, notably English, or that he outright pilfered such as a well-known song and verse and then incorporated it into his own musical numbers. According to Lyon, “Brecht was alarmingly careless with … details and surprisingly generous in borrowing”.[35] Reinhold Grimm lists over forty different writers from whom Brecht drew or quoted directly in his works.[36] This is not to say that Brecht was not open about his use of others’ works. In his earlier years he was remarkably candid about the sources he used in his own works.[37]

It was John Willett who first identified Rudyard Kipling as one of Brecht’s primary literary sources from whom he extracted many of his more notable works.[38] As a young man Brecht identified closely with the writings of Kipling. Carl Zuckmayer notes that Brecht once gave him a copy of Kipling’s works in translation and stated, “An dem kannst du lernen”.[39] Brecht indeed learned much from Kipling and went on to incorporate many Kipling-esque passages into his own plays, songs, and even into planned works that never saw production. He would eventually glean additional quotes, texts and songs from others as well. In many ways Brecht willfully disregarded the copyright laws of his day or simply ignored them.

When accused of plagiarizing the works of others he made known his contempt for copyright laws, stating that “the notion of plagiarism was an outgrowth of bourgeois property concepts that arose in the late Middle Ages”.[40] Brecht also made it clear that he disdained “original creativity” as bourgeois and wrote the following,

Jemand, der den Wert eines guten Ausdrucks kennt, wird ihn lieber übernehmen, als dasselbe einmal anders auszudrücken (wenn es wirklich dasselbe ist) und dadurch einen neuen Ausdrück zu schaffen, der entweder hinter dem alten zurückbleibt oder ihn beschämt.[41]

Brecht unequivocally affirms that he saw no need to rewrite a significant expression in his own words when he could simply appropriate it for himself. This quote of Brecht’s summarizes nearly the whole of his philosophy regarding his frequent incursions into the literary territory of others. Brecht was also fond of citing Homer and Shakespeare, whom he viewed as great plagiarists of their time[42], and by doing so he identified himself as a eminent writer of his time. In his opinion, all great ages are based on or built on the ability to plagiarize. When he was accused of plagiarism in Dreigroschenoper, Brecht explained it away by his exercising a strong laxity in matters of intellectual property, or a “grundsätzlichen Laxheit in Fragen geistigen Eigentums”.[43]

Brecht expanded upon the issues and accusations of plagiarism in other commentaries. He noted that it had been a time honored tradition, done by other notable writers, who were not accused of plagiarism.[44] He not only saw the borrowing of material from other literary sources as being positive, but he also considered it a method of rescuing and renewing abandoned texts. Elsewhere in his writings he noted the following,

Die literarische Expropriierung in Form von Plagiaten wird Zeiten eigentümlich sein, die etwas Neues anfangen und dem Alten gegenüber die Stellung von Übernehmern, Verarbeitern, ja Rettern einnehmen. Gerade die Neuerer werden Expropriierungen vornehmen, Plagiate begehen, aber sie werden sie auch so einschmelzen und eben ernerern...[45]

Yet along with his practice of borrowing from the works of others, Brecht did learn from those authors whom he plagiarized. Brecht credits Kipling with instructing him in the art of ballad writing and in the use of highly quotable lyrics and irony in his verse. Lyon acknowledges that not all Brecht’s literary skill came from Kipling, as he already showed a strong proclivity to write not only in the same manner as Kipling but in a fashion similar to those other authors from whom he liberally borrowed.[46] He enhanced his own style with like tendencies he learned from Kipling and others. Not only did Brecht draw on the writing style of other authors, but it is through their written descriptions of locations and incidents that Brecht created his own rendition of well-known places. Willett cites the influence of Edgar Wallace’s dockland thrillers as being the catalyst for much of the set design of Die Dreigroschenoper.[47]

One particular element of writing that Brecht picked up from Kipling and adopted as his own was the use of short epigraphs or ballad stanzas that preceded his prose chapters. Brecht similarly used signs in his plays that announced to viewers what dramatic action to expect in the scene that followed.[48] These techniques of Brecht’s can likewise be equated with the syntax of open source coding. As mentioned earlier in chapter 3, comments within source code are instructional for programmers who might examine the program at a later time. These textual remarks explain to other programmers the purpose of subsequent lines of code and when or why they were added or appended. Much like the placards Brecht used on stage, comments within computer code serve a didactical function. They announce to other developers the use of borrowed text or code. It is considered poor form for a coder to leverage the work or code of another in his or her own project without recognizing their contribution in the form of a comment. Additionally, without comments the average reader would quickly become lost in the myriad lines of code. Unlike Brecht’s physical signals, these “signs” in the code have become standard practice and issue with most all open source applications. Only poor programmers would think to omit comments from the text of his or her source code.

Brecht also acknowledged Kipling’s influence on his own “code” or style of poetry. When Brecht published the poem “Ballade von dem Soldaten” in his 1926 collection of poems entitled Taschenpostille he “almost” acknowledges Kipling’s own verse that he made his by appending the remark, “Nach einer englischen Soldatenballade”.[49] Later, when Wieland Herzfelde included this same poem with hundreds of Brecht’s other poems in 1950-1951, Brecht credited Kipling by name. A notation in his own handwriting on a printer’s page proof bears the remark, “Nach Kipling”.[50]

However, Brecht was not always so generous in his acknowledgement of those whose contributions he presented as his own. In fact, when current critics discuss Brecht, they often refer to the “collective” Brecht or to those other contributors who assisted Brecht either directly in his writing or who added indirectly to the substance of his works. Of the many English to German translations Brecht used which were done by Elisabeth Hauptmann, with the exception of the play “Happy End”, Brecht reworked the translations to such a degree he subsequently considered them his own and used them whenever suitable. Though she modestly denied any credit for his final works and simply called her efforts Vorübersetzungen, it cannot be denied that Brecht could not have accomplished the translations by himself given that his command of English was considered less proficient than that of Hauptmann’s.

Elisabeth Hauptmann’s translations into German included a large selection of Kipling’s poems, John Gay’s Beggar’s Opera and several Chinese poems and plays from Arthur Waley’s English renderings.[51] It was this version of the Beggar’s Opera on which Brecht later based his Dreigroschenoper. It was this play, in fact, that sealed Brecht’s reputation as a plagiarist. Brecht unabashedly called public attention to his use of Kipling in this work. On a sub-heading of the original theater playbill of August 1928 it was noted that ballads by François Villon and Rudyard Kipling would be interspersed throughout the play (“Eingelegte Balladen von François Villon und Rudyard Kipling”).[52] It took nine months for a theater critic to make a public disclosure of Brecht’s transgression. Though Kipling was scarcely mentioned throughout the controversy that ensued, the implication of plagiarism was strong enough to attract the attention of the public. However, in spite of the playbill notice very little of Kipling’s original text remained in the play; much of it had been hashed out due to re-workings and edits by Brecht himself. Though vilified by many at the time, Brecht’s play became a classic and it remains the most recognized of all his works. This can be credited not to the origin of the piece, but on account of the improvements Brecht made to the original piece and by making it his own composition. To have completed a project so well that all forget about the original work is, according to Raymond, to have earned huge prestige.[53]

As in literature, if proper acknowledgement is given, one may improve or expand upon another’s work. Programmers sometimes take over other abandoned software projects and make them their own. Brecht’s adaptation of the Beggar’s Opera follows this same pattern. As shown in a prior chapter, Raymond’s adoption of “popclient” which later became “fetchmail” is a classic example. If a programmer can use existing material, acknowledge its source and improve upon it, no offense is committed. This is basically true of all literary reworking. Eric Raymond is likewise best known today, not as the author of several original Emacs nodes, but as the current proprietor of the frequently cited and popular fetchmail client. Though he is more proud of his achievements with the Emacs nodes, he recognizes people credit him more for the popular fetchmail client. He states that work based on lesser-known code (or in Brecht’s case a lesser-known play), but which is then identified as the “brand identity”, is more noticed than several highly utilized, though lesser-known code contributions.[54] For Raymond now as it was for Brecht, much is determined by the current popular adage known as “branding”, or identifying an author with a well-known work. The author becomes nearly synonymous with the application itself and the two are often used interchangeably. The best example of this is Linus Torvalds and the Linux operating system. Though the latter’s name is based partly on the author’s given name, one does not talk about the former without mentioning the latter as well.

The entire issue of copyrighted versus public domain works remains debatable even to this day. The problems Brecht encountered by lifting others’ published works and making them his own have not diminished over time. Whether an original composition falls under copyright protection (to eventually become part of the public domain) or whether it takes on the aspects of property law (and remains under an individual’s ownership ad infinitum) remains highly questionable. However, most countries recognize that if a portion of code or text is integral to the continued viability of related code, then that portion of text becomes public domain and is free for all to use. No one can claim exclusive ownership to an integral section of code nor can it be copyrighted. If someone tried to do so this would jeopardize the continued well being of public domain authorship.[55] Brecht disregarded this openly. To Brecht any printed works that were available he considered free for his own use. That same applies to some programmers where any code that does not exclusively state it is licensed with restrictions is in their eyes available for the taking. Even unreadable binary code can be reverse-compiled and made legible again.[56]

Sharing of Software Content and Code

The entire concept behind open source is posited on the belief that the general body of source code that falls under the GPL (General Public License) can be passed on to whomever wants it. In fact, the practice of lifting source material from other locations is encouraged. It reduces the amount of time required by programmers to fulfill a general need and increases the overall body of useable code in the community. Provided the source is actually licensed under the GPL, it is a serious lapse in protocol when borrowed and improved upon open code is not made available for others to use.[57] However, it is also common practice for most programmers who dabble in open source to beg, borrow or even steal (reverse-engineer) source code from any available resource. This can also be construed as Brecht’s interpretation regarding his use of others’ works. Brecht liberally borrowed from all material he then found citing it as a practice done by authors ages before. “Natürlich basiert so ziemlich jede Blütezeit der Literatur auf der Kraft und Unschuld ihrer Plagiate”.[58]

The more zealous of the open source advocates (among whom we should also count those of the Free Software Foundation or proponents of Richard M. Stallman’s philosophy to “free” all code or to “Stamp Out Software Hoarding”) believe that the code of all programs, whether GPL’ed or proprietary, should be accessible to all, according to Eric Raymond in his treatise, “Homesteading the Noosphere”.[59] Though noble in its intent, not all software falls under this precept. There remain too many divergent applications dependent on the rent gathered from proprietary software. Much of the research paid for by commercial entities requires financial compensation. Not all hackers can spend their time writing software code for free.

Still, enough earnest programmers remain in the open source community with a steady income flow who can afford to contribute to the shared code base. The concept of sharing code freely among programmers, rather than by extracting it by means of outright plagiarism, falls under the distinction of a gift culture.[60] Usually known only to anthropologists, a gift culture arises in a society when there is an abundance of survival goods and leisure. With the advent of the Internet and the increased importance placed on programmers of distinction, a similar gift culture has grown out of this privileged working class. Some already have an abundance of goods thanks to the above-average salary demanded by these same coders.

Within both the open source movement and in literature there remain a few common ground rules. Among coders it is considered heresy to “file off” or remove the name of the original author or contributing developers and attempt to pass off the work as your own. The original author should always be recognized, even in the event the project is abandoned or passed along to another. The file listing all changes or modifications to the code over its history including the name of the original author represents that program’s chain of title or deed. To pass along the code includes passing along the contributing reference to that source’s history and original developer.

Eric Raymond concurs with many of Brecht’s literary sources. He also mimics Brecht by citing Kipling in his disparagement of those who do not contribute back to the original texts.[61] He agrees that to only steal and not improve on others’ works will result in the offender falling behind the open contributor. Just as Brecht used Kipling’s writings to his advantage, Raymond also cites Kipling’s poem, “The Mary Gloster” as evidence for using this tactic.[62]

And they asked me how I did it,

and I gave ’em the Scripture text,

“You keep your light so shining

a little in front o’ the next!”

They copied all they could follow,

but they couldn’t copy my mind,

And I left ’em sweating and stealing

a year and a half behind.

In other words, Brecht’s originality when combined with the text of others cannot be considered attempts at literary theft. Brecht should not be condemned for his plagiarism, but rather praised for his originality in creating new adaptations of existing works.

Current Economic Trends

The analogy of play and software code is not so implausible. The current trend among open source advocates for generating revenue from free and open code is the service-support model. This effectively dissolves the manufacturing model so many corporations use. Software has become an inexpensive commodity. The generation of code has taken second place to actually supporting the programs currently running. Providing technical support for software use rather than charging for expensive proprietary code in addition to offering free code to new users now generates revenue in the field of open source licensing and development. Open source products can all be downloaded and installed without cost.[63] This includes “applications” such as word processors, or “infrastructure” items that are better known as open protocols, such as those used for networking. These protocols rely on a common and open standard, without which much of the Internet would cease to function. Other open source products covered under this definition are “middleware” software applications, such as database engines. No licenses are required from a commercial entity in order to use these tools. However, they are now simply commodities. The real test in their use relies upon how well users can implement the programs. This is where the service model steps in. Vendors charge for technical support and added enterprise editions with more “bells and whistles” or “improved” applications with more options. In turn, these same vendors use those monies generated to further research and development. A similar service model is what supported the production of Brecht’s plays. He generated revenue based on “code” he created with others that was placed into production. From his revenue he then popularized and reproduced these works in various formats.

But perhaps the strongest appeal of open source software is its low price. No one can refute the fact that free software is attractive. Even the hidden costs involved in implementing open source software, such as training support personnel, maintenance costs such as patching and shoring up security holes, are all cheaper over time than purchasing licenses for closed source products. Where an open source platform may lack some of the applications a user may be accustomed to, there are other related programs that would easily replace their proprietary counterparts. In other words, a transition to an open platform would be mostly inconsequential economically speaking.

Finally, the real strength of open source applications and Brecht’s plays is in their implementation. Much depends on the developers or the producers and how they manage the dispersal of the “code” or play to others. Unlike most markets where the sale value of a product diminishes as consumers freely exchange the product with one another, the intrinsic value of open source code along with the production of popular plays increases with escalating trade or viewership. Many are the formerly unknown applications that have become popularized through use and in turn have been folded into major Linux distributions. They are now an intrinsic part of most any Linux “flavor”. Eventually, if plays become successful or are popularized enough, they move from the stage to the cinema where they generate more revenue. Such was the case with Brecht’s Dreigroschenoper that was later filmed. Brecht’s plays have undoubtedly become more well-known over time. Many are now familiar with the popular tune “Mack the Knife” on account of the popularization and reproduction of this song.

In summary, economics play a crucial role in both stage and software code production. However, both Brecht and the open source community have been able to bypass many of the typical obstacles encountered by conventional plays and proprietary code. Both show a strong affinity to share and redistribute their work, in some cases remodeling existing texts to suit their own conventions. Out of these endeavors both have found a profitable niche and have enhanced their own reputation as well as assisted others in gaining experience and notoriety.