PERSPECTIVES on Science and Christian Faith JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC AFFILIATION In This Issue … Open Source Software and Christian Thought Feminine Sin and Female Scientists Genetics, the Nephilim, and the Historicity of Adam Beyond Original Sin: Is a Theological Paradigm Shift Inevitable? Introducing Open Source and the Raspberry Pi to Schools in Developing Nations “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom.” Psalm 111:10 VOLUME 67, NUMBER 1 MARCH 2015 (US ISSN 0892-2675) (CPM #40927506) Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith Manuscript Guidelines © 2015 by the American Scientifi c Affi liation The pages of Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith (PSCF) are open Editor to original, unpublished contributions that interact with science and Christian JAMES C. PETERSON (Roanoke College and faith in a manner consistent with scientifi c and theological integrity. A brief Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine) description of standards for publication in PSCF can be found in the lead 221 College Lane editorial of the December 2013 issue. This is available at www.asa3.org under Salem, VA 24153 publications  PSCF  index. Published papers do not refl ect any offi cial [email protected] position of the American Scientifi c Affi liation. 1. Submit all manuscripts to: James C. Peterson, Editor, Roanoke College, Book Review Editors 221 College Lane, Salem, VA 24153. E-mail: [email protected]. PATRICK FRANKLIN (Providence University College Submissions are typically acknowledged within 10 days of their receipt. and Seminary), Coordinating Editor 10 College Crescent 2. Authors must submit an electronic copy of the manuscript formatted Otterburne, MB R0A 1G0 in Word as an email attachment. Typically 2–3 anonymous reviewers [email protected] critique each manuscript considered for publication. 3. Use endnotes for all references. Each note must have a unique number. ARIE LEEGWATER (Calvin College) Follow The Chicago Manual of Style (16th ed., sections 14.1 to 14.317). 1726 Knollcrest Circle SE 4. While fi gures and diagrams may be embedded within the Word text fi le Grand Rapids, MI 49546 of the manuscript, authors are required to also send them as individual [email protected] electronic fi les (JPEG or TIFF format). Figure captions should be provided SARA SYBESMA TOLSMA (Northwestern College) as a list at the end of the manuscript text. Authors are encouraged also 101 7th St SW to submit a sample of graphic art that can be used to illustrate their Orange City, IA 51041 manuscript. [email protected] ARTICLES are major treatments of a particular subject relating science to a HEATHER LOOY (The King’s University) Christian position. Such papers should be at least 2,000 words but not more 9125 - 50th Street than 8,000 words in length, excluding endnotes. An abstract of 50–150 Edmonton, AB T6B 2H3 words is required. Publication for such papers normally takes 9–12 months [email protected] from the time of acceptance. COMMUNICATIONS are brief treatments of a wide range of subjects of DEREK SCHUURMAN (Redeemer University College) interest to PSCF readers. Communications must not be longer than 2700 777 Garner Rd E words, excluding endnotes. Communications are normally published 6–9 Ancaster, ON L9K 1J4 months from the time of acceptance. [email protected] BOOK REVIEWS serve both to alert readers to new books that appear Editorial Board signifi cant and to engage these books in critical interaction. When a subject ROBERT BISHOP, Wheaton College area editor selects a book for review, the book is then offered to a scholar DOROTHY BOORSE, Gordon College with the best match in expertise. ASA/CSCA members who would like to be HESSEL BOUMA III, Calvin College considered as potential reviewers are welcome to express interest to the book WALTER L. BRADLEY, Baylor University review coordinating editor for inclusion in the reviewer database. Publishers STEPHEN M. CONTAKES, Westmont College may also contact the book review coordinating editor if they are not sure JANEL M. CURRY, Gordon College which subject area reviewer would best consider a particular book. EDWARD B. DAVIS, Messiah College • Patrick Franklin ([email protected]): book review coordinating OWEN GINGERICH, Harvard-Smithsonian Center editor; subject areas: ethics, philosophy, and theology. for Astrophysics • Arie Leegwater ([email protected]): cosmology, history of science, STEVEN G. HALL, Louisiana State University and LSU mathematics, and physical sciences. Agricultural Center ALLAN HARVEY, Boulder, CO • Sara Sybesma Tolsma ([email protected]): biology, environment, D. GARETH JONES, University of Otago genetics, and origins. ROBERT KAITA, Princeton University • Heather Looy ([email protected]): anthropology, neurology, TREMPER LONGMAN III, Westmont College psychology, and sociology. HEATHER LOOY, The King’s University • Derek Schuurman ([email protected]): computers, engi- SARA MILES, Eastern University neering, and technology. KEITH B. MILLER, Kansas State University The viewpoints expressed in the books reviewed, and in the reviews GEORGE L. MURPHY, Trinity Lutheran Seminary, themselves, are those of the authors and reviewers respectively, and do not Columbus, OH refl ect an offi cial position of the ASA. ALAN G. PADGETT, Luther Seminary ANGELA SABATES, Bethel University LETTERS to the Editor concerning PSCF content may be published unless RALPH STEARLEY, Calvin College marked not for publication. Letters submitted for publication must not be JUDITH A. TORONCHUK, Trinity Western University longer than 700 words and will be subject to editorial review. Letters are to be submitted as electronic copies. Letters accepted for publication will be Managing Editor published within 6 months. LYN BERG (American Scientifi c Affi liation) 218 Boston Street, Suite 208 ADVERTISING is accepted in PSCF, subject to editorial approval. Please Topsfi eld, MA 01983 address inquiries for rates or further information to the Managing Editor. [email protected] The ASA cannot take responsibility for any orders placed with advertisers in PSCF. ESTHER MARTIN, Manuscript Editor AUTHORIZATION TO PHOTOCOPY MATERIAL for internal, personal, or educational classroom use, or the internal or personal use of specifi c clients, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith is granted by ASA, ISSN: 0892-2675, provided that the appropriate fee is (USPS 28-3740, ISSN 0892-2675) is published paid directly to Copyright Clearance Center (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive, quarterly by American Scientifi c Affi liation, 218 Boston Danvers, MA 01923 USA for conventional use, or check CCC online at the Street Suite 208, Topsfi eld, MA 01983. Periodicals following address: www.copyright.com/. No registration with CCC is needed: postage paid at Topsfi eld, MA, and additional mailing simply identify the article being copied, the number of copies, and the journal offi ce. POSTMASTER: Send address changes title (Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith). For those who wish to to: Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, request permission for other kinds of copying or reprinting, kindly write to 218 Boston Street Suite 208, Topsfi eld, MA 01983. the Managing Editor. Editorial Qwerty, Time, and Risk James C. Peterson Our keyboards still have “qwerty” across Janet Warren argues that half the world’s population the top line. This layout of keys is not the should be more concerned about the sin of apathy most effi cient for typing, but it avoided than the more often-cited sin of pride. She writes that hammer confl ict in the fi rst mechanical typewriters. if that were to change, more women would contrib- The people who learned how to type on those fi rst ute to the STEM disciplines. Gregg Davidson states typewriters preferred not to learn a new layout, so that the evidence is so overwhelming for common the next typewriter iterations carried on the pattern, descent, that it is time to understand Adam and Eve gathering even more typists invested in the “qwerty” as a hominid couple chosen by God to be the fi rst line-up of keys. Continuity has a signifi cant benefi t in endowed with souls. In contrast, Denis Lamoureux minimizing the time required to retrain. sees Adam and Eve as an assumption of ancient sci- ence that Genesis uses to describe human sin and Continuity also facilitates cooperation. This journal the need for forgiveness, not as a particular fi rst asks for submissions in one of the Word formats, not human couple. Then Derek Schuurman tells how he because it is the best word-processing program, but found on site that his earlier work, that of sending rather, because it is the one most widely used and refurbished computers and software to developing enables all the reviewers, editors, checkers, and print- nations, had not been as successful as he had hoped. ers involved in developing and printing each article, He offers a new paradigm: establishing open source to work together. The original author and the many software and solar-powered computers as a more people who shape a successful article at some point effective alternative. in the publishing process, dispersed across state and national borders, can be counted on to be able Paradigm shifts create new risks. Implications and to handle that software. They can focus on the con- complications that no one predicts are to be expected. tent and formatting rather than compatibility issues. Early adopters relish investing the needed time and Converting everyone from one common platform expertise to explore and troubleshoot changing to another, even to a word processor that is better approaches. It is a judgment call, then, for the rest as in some sense, would be disruptive and demanding to when the evidence, benefi ts, and reliability are suf- over an extended period of time. This always leaves fi cient to make the switch. The widespread adoption open the question as to when such a change will be necessary to keep cooperating can take considerable worth the effort. There will no doubt be a point even- time through an often awkward transition. It took tually, when the change will offer a net benefi t. a century and a half for the solar system proposed by Copernicus to be widely acknowledged as more Paradigm shifts—those in which one comes to likely than the geocentrism that had prevailed for understand something in a substantially different millennia. We often make such conversions more way—are even more complicated and demanding, quickly these days, but not necessarily less pain- and yet each of our authors in this issue is propos- fully. Sometimes it takes a rising generation in a fi eld ing some sort of paradigm shift. Karl-Dieter Crisman to recognize the validity of the new approach, since advocates open source software replacing much of they are not as invested in what had been previously our routine dependence on proprietary software. taught. Volume 67, Number 1, March 2015 1 Acknowlegment At other times, a new approach is shown to be lack- In parallel, it might be said that paradigm shifts are ing before it spreads; thankfully, it dies out before often jarring and disruptive. They can be uncomfort- more people fall under its misapprehension. Simply able, even disorienting. Yet a paradigm shift is not as being new is, of course, not automatically superior. costly as failing to change when change is warranted. Eventually, if a new paradigm indeed makes better sense, the changeover can be worth the effort. We PSCF offers, in this issue, some proposed new have seen that time and time again. approaches that are well worth the evaluation of our readers.  It has been said, in short, that if you think education James C. Peterson is too expensive, remember the cost of ignorance. , editor 2014 Peer Reviewers We wish to thank the following scholars for their crucial service in anonymous peer review. Paul Arveson Gareth Jones Robert Bishop Grace Ju Dave Bookless Dan Lindstrom Dorothy Boorse Tremper Longman Hessel Bouma Heather Looy Jeanne Bundens Keri McFarlane Dorothy Chappell Sara Miles John Clements Larry Molnar Wayne Cochrane Jonathan Moo Harry Cook Stephen Moshier Janel Curry George Murphy Cal DeWitt Alan Padgett Chris Farrell Ken Piers Paul Fayter Jeff Ploegstra Marvin Floyd Jonathon Schramm Luke Gacho D erek Schuurman Brian Greuel Makoto Shimada Matt Heun Bob Sluka Carol Hill Dave Warners Margot Hodson Paul Wason Russ Howell Bruce Waltke Randy Isaac John Wood  2 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith Article Open Source Software and Christian Thought Karl-Dieter Crisman Karl-Dieter Crisman This article introduces the distinction between proprietary and open source software, and discusses connections with Christian thought. It argues that this distinction is important for Christians to understand, and covers four main resonance points between Christian thought and open source software: stewardship, building community, helping the underprivileged, and promoting creativity. It also addresses how the approaches differ. With ubiquitous computing by programmers. Usually this code is power, the practice of science in a higher-level human-readable lan- has changed dramatically—as guage such as C++, Java, and Python. By has the range of ethical issues Christians contrast, the software itself is usually a must respond to concerning privacy, com- binary fi le—one only the computer can puting access, and whether to enhance really read and interpret. This sets up a human abilities.1 This article surveys, and fundamental distinction: suggests, responses of the Christian faith Open source software is software tradition, in particular, to the idea of open whose source code may be modifi ed source software (OSS). Open source refers and redistributed. The source code of to the way software is developed. It not proprietary software may typically not only has implications for how we do sci- be modifi ed or redistributed without ence, but also has deep resonance with express consent. a number of core values in Christianity. We will delve later into further important distinctions, but the right to redistribute Especially with respect to creativity the source code is the most fundamental and freedom, the position taken here operating difference. One reason this is is that OSS better expresses a Christian confusing is that, although nearly all OSS approach. However, it is also not a pan- has no immediate acquisition cost, it is acea or a unique way to “write or use not the same as no-cost “freeware.” software Christianly,” and such a survey cannot possibly be comprehensive. The Consider the Firefox web browser or intention here is to open the door to fur- LibreOffi ce offi ce suite;3 these are OSS, ther discussion of the issues involved. As but there are no-cost or loss-leader equiv- Redeemer University computer scientist alents which are not. On the other end, Derek Schuurman says in his recent book, many of us (whether we know it or not) Shaping a Digital World, technology really use the Linux operating system kernel in is not value-neutral;2 tools and method- embedded devices, in Android phones, ologies Christians use in science have or in company/university back ends—in potential to refl ect our beliefs as much as the latter case, with expensive service the questions we choose to address. Karl-Dieter Crisman is an Associate Professor of Mathematics at Gordon College and a Faculty Fellow of the Center for Faith and Inquiry there. Open Source Software His research is in the mathematics of voting and choice, and he has taught The source code of a program is the origi- students and faculty how to use and develop for Sage mathematics software nal instructions to the computer, written (http://www.sagemath.org) on three continents. Volume 67, Number 1, March 2015 3 Article Open Source Software and Christian Thought contracts. Similarly, the OSS Apache and nginx web and inverts it, with a radical rethinking of intellectual servers, invisible to the end-user, dominate that mar- property. Open source licenses explicitly allow redis- ket.4 One may not even be aware that one’s software tribution of source code. There is no space to go into is open source. the full history of the various open source licenses, including the role that AT&T’s phone monopoly In science, the ideas of open access (for example, played in it, but to really understand the motivations PLOS), open wikis, and open standards are more behind open source, any of the many books on this in familiar, and we will spend some time on current the endnotes are well worth the read. Weber summa- technical science-related arguments regarding OSS rizes it well: “Property in open source is confi gured shortly. But open source is only related to these, fundamentally around the right to distribute, not the not identical to them, and to truly understand this right to exclude.”7 (as well as the theology), a small amount of the history of OSS is necessary. It would take another article to examine properly why people write huge amounts of software under licenses that make it nearly impossible to charge A Brief History for the software itself—not to mention how it often Many programmers of open source consider it (accu- happens in a highly decentralized way, with corpo- rately) to be a movement, or even a philosophy. This rate support coming after, not before, success. Some view stems from a change in the role of program- explanation will come up when we discuss commu- mers over the decades as software, not hardware, nity and creativity below, but for now we will follow became the more marketable product. Political sci- open source guru Eric Raymond and others in stat- entist Steven Weber characterizes this transition in ing that work on OSS, whether starting a project or his Success of Open Source, “The narrative of the pro- working on a bug, comes from “scratching a devel- grammer is … of the craftsperson from whom control oper’s personal itch.”8 and autonomy were taken away.”5 One of the most pervasive licenses, originating with Steven Levy’s book Hackers tells this story (which Stallman, does not even allow modifi cations to be is almost a mythology by now) in far more detail.6 distributed without allowing subsequent modifi ca- To oversimplify, it says that programmers from the tion and distribution (“copyleft”).9 This means that 1950s to the 1970s, whether working in garages or not only can one modify the code (open source), but on huge IBM mainframes, could be artisans who that it also can never be directly used in a proprietary shared ideas and code, while today they are fun- product. Advocates of this stance often reject the gible resources. Whether this narrative is always true term “open source,” which dates to early 1998,10 and is less important than that it can feel true—that one use Stallman’s original “free software,”11 because may wish to see innovations built upon, not end- copyleft licenses are to protect the freedom of the lessly reinvented. developer and all future users to do whatever they want with the software. The mechanism asserting this control over a program is the copyright license. Standard intellectual property This is a controversial distinction. On the one hand, protocol for software grants the user a limited license one might ask whether this sort of restrictive free- to use copyrighted material. A free version may dom is indeed free. On the other hand, one might be restricted to nonprofi t activities; some licenses ask whether allowing code that was initially open restrict use outside the United States or prohibit use to become closed is in the spirit of freedom. There is for certain activities, for example, creating weapons, a very healthy ongoing debate on this issue (includ- and most explicitly require release from liability. ing among the referees of this article!), and we have Since the source code typically can be used to rec- no intention of resolving it, on a Christian basis or reate the program, it is usually not included, and otherwise. What is crucial for our purposes is that attempts at reverse-engineering are also usually pro- partisans of both perspectives are using the language hibited by the license. of morality and freedom (in addition to other, more technical rationales) for at least some of their moti- The key innovation by early open source develop- vation for using such licenses; we will return to this ers—most famously in the case of Richard Stallman several times. in the early 1980s—takes the idea of such licenses 4 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith Karl-Dieter Crisman Science and Open Source We fi nd that such questions accentuate the complex- ity of the issue; they do not provide a clear technical Before considering theology and OSS, it is worth not- preference of one form. Some companies provide ing that there is a healthy discussion regarding OSS excellent support with their proprietary licenses and in scientifi c contexts, and it is not of purely academic frequent updates; others may be sold to another fi rm interest. This will also help fl esh out what OSS is. which lets a product languish, or just go out of busi- First, OSS is everywhere in science. Well-used tools ness with the customer at a loss. Similarly, some open such as Biopython and Bioperl are sponsored by a source programs have robust ecosystems of online foundation for open bioinformatics, while the R data support and an easy transition from other programs, analysis project is ubiquitous enough in biostatistics, while others are known for challenging, developer- psychology, and even fi nance that there are com- centered interfaces or lack of access to hardware. panies whose business model is entirely based on However, scientifi c considerations, such as transpar- support or extensions for R.12 The industry standard ency and reproducibility of research, have gained for technical document preparation in mathe matics in importance recently. Several editorials in scien- and physics continues to be programs based on tifi c journals over the past fi ve years, along with the LaTeX. In geography, the GRASS GIS has been under explicit policies of some journals, have urged this. In continuous development for decades, as has Octave particular, data and analytic code should be made in numerical calculation. In addition, there are hun- available and usable for peer-reviewed work, while dreds of toolkits and fi les that researchers make the analysis itself should be reproducible by “execut- freely available which run routines and scripts based ing the code on the data provided and produc[ing] upon standard proprietary tools such as MATLAB; results matching those that the authors claim.”14 such code is often OSS. This illustrates a point commentators have made Though this is possible using code built upon pro- numerous times. In Weber’s words, software is grams like MATLAB (as PLOS’s statement allows15), an “antirival” good.13 Not only does the value of it does beg the question of whether to trust the results software not diminish if more people use it, includ- of programs whose source one cannot see, especially ing freeloaders (as opposed to the “tragedy of the if the algorithm is the research, for instance, a new commons”), but its value may also increase with statistical test. On a more practical level, it is an additional users—for example, when they contribute incentive to release one’s own code as OSS to enable bug reports or other suggestions. In domains with further advances in science. some programming expertise, OSS leverages this Those close to, or in, mathematics or computer science further with user-contributed fi xes. have additional issues to consider. For pedagogical As science becomes more and more reliant upon reasons, students should often be able to verify and computation (and scientists more knowledgeable in understand algorithms, and it is incredibly instruc- it), the value that most scientists receive from soft- tive to do so in the software they are actually using. ware is not the resale value of any software they Similarly, one might also want to know whether a use or develop, but the freedom to solve their own correct algorithm has been correctly implemented.16 problems, whether in proteomics or optimization. Again, this is only possible with some way of view- Signifi cant customizability and the ability to quickly ing source, though not necessarily with rights to fi x problems in a program may even be a prime modify and redistribute. motivation behind starting a new project. Finally, considering how research has expanded At the same time, because of the focus on use and not beyond the domain of large universities in the West necessarily on development, the sciences will also ask raises the question of who can afford to use certain hard questions about any new software. Questions of types of software. Someone fi nishing doctoral work support arise—whether for support staff or for third- may move to an under-resourced college or return party/hardware support. Particularly in pedagogical to a university in the developing world, where contexts, the nature of the learning curve for the user they may not be able to afford a license to use code interface and “sunk” investments in a program bear developed for their dissertation. Differential pricing consideration. Volume 67, Number 1, March 2015 5 Article Open Source Software and Christian Thought schemes may be part of the solution; open source has wouldn’t you want to explore that option further? this potential as well. You might be able to … boost a missionary’s efforts …17 The vision is compelling. Christian Thought and With any software, however, support and training Open Source costs, hosting, and other aspects of “total cost of In all three of these latter examples (transparency, ownership” (TCO) must be considered. In a recent pedagogy, and access), one senses the ethical impera- microeconomic analysis, the software acquisition tive coming through. Open source users and creators cost portion of (self-reported) TCO by fi rms in coun- have a history of explicit moral value judgments in tries of all development levels was shown to be only their self-perception and motivation. So it should one of the determining factors when considering be no surprise that there are explicit connections to whether to use OSS.18 (This study would have been Christian thought. more valuable with far more specifi cs about the products acquired.) There are four major areas of resonance. It is worth noting that they are quite ecumenical and form As an example more familiar to many readers, natural connections to many secular value systems although OSS learning management systems such as well. We will return to freedom after considering as Moodle have partners offering paid support,19 each of the following in turn: the lack of a sole institutional support point (as • Stewardship with rival Blackboard), can be a key deciding factor when the fi rst priority is 100% uptime. Further, with • Building community extremely cheap internet access and free cloud-based • Helping the underprivileged solutions such as Google Docs, the dynamic has • Promoting creativity changed even further. The claim of this article is that, although none of On the other hand, one blog post by a church solu- these are guaranteed simply by using OSS (and tions fi rm goes so far as to suggest that only churches many proprietary programs have potential in each of with a lot of tech-savvy members need use OSS20— these areas), open source has more potential to live this is simply false.21 There are OSS solutions needing up to these virtues, and hence, in general, gives more no special training, and proprietary programs need- opportunity to connect with these Christian ideas. ing a great deal of it; this is not a specifi cally OSS versus proprietary argument. And certainly for Stewardship many small organizations, acquisition cost is the The most obvious attribute of OSS is its low acquisi- largest part of TCO. tion cost, and for many Christian commentators this question is best subsumed into that of direct steward- This brief stewardship discussion should make it ship of monetary resources for a given organization. clear that, although one may make a good argument We will leave aside for the moment whether this is for a specifi c open source product on price alone, all that stewardship is, and ask whether using OSS this is only a part of a Christian refl ection on OSS. is like the servant who doubled the ten talents. Community As a representative of many who say yes, consider It may be a surprise that for many open source erstwhile Charlotte, North Carolina, house church users, fostering community plays a central role. leader Donald Parris’s detailed documents on One extremely popular content management sys- switching church functions such as accounting and tem advertises itself with the tagline, “Come for the scheduling to computers using Linux. He asks, software, stay for the community.”22 Stallman, of Cost is not the only factor in your [software] “free software” fame, does not really disagree with decision, and not even necessarily the most the characterization that he “built up an entire politi- important. Yet, if you could reasonably manage cal movement to address [the] issue of … crushing your church for less money than you currently do, loneliness.”23 6 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith Karl-Dieter Crisman Users and developers of OSS share and grow ideas Freed from making a sale, the open source model intentionally together, including in person, and can relate to these spiritual gifts. Asking someone to often speak of this aspect. One referee spoke quite use OSS means trying to win a contributor, not try- eloquently of a “real Acts 2 vibe” and companion- ing to acquire a customer; Schuurman mentions “the ship. This resonates with Christian themes: Israel is notion of common grace” to explain this.32 to be a microcosm of true community; Jesus calls the Raymond explains why this is true for developers: disciples his true family; and the epistles are full of “authority follow[s] responsibility” for any piece of descriptions of how to live in community. code.33 However, any user has this potential as well, However, open source community is not identical for example, by contributing to a help forum, sug- to Christian community. Some OSS communities gesting better translations, or trying new versions. can be exclusive or even hostile to those new to it, Proprietary systems usually pick exclusive groups to members with a different licensing philosophy, with nondisclosure agreements; in the open source or to those who transgress unwritten norms.24 Some world, such groups must be as open as possible for projects can at least be perceived as uniting against success. the common foe of a particular computer company. Philosopher Pekka Himanen compares social Research does not suggest that this is a primary bonds in open source to a Plato-like academy of motive, but it is a motive.25 “companions in learning,” rather than to an authori- Finally, as a worldview (not necessarily in personal tarian monastery.34 Jesuit spokesman and theologian interaction), OSS communities value people for con- Antonio Spadaro rightly calls this particular anal- tributions. Extensive research bears out that in a ogy “molto riduttivo”;35 still, it seems very similar “typical” project, reputation gained by meaningful to Jesus’s teaching his disciples to see him not only contributions means something.26 as master, but also as a friend who has given them power of their own. In order to analyze this, we must compare it to an There is a further reason for Christians to be alternative model. Companies such as Google and involved with open source communities. The pri- Apple also welcome limited-user community, for mary means of communication is electronic—one example, in the form of help forums, but without the of the most powerful, fast, and nuance-free forms cultivation of “every user as a potential volunteer”27 there is. Hence, there is rampant potential for mis- and the prototype of servant leadership. Training interpretation and rash words. Becoming charitable sessions in open source communities nearly always contributors to such communities is one of the most are about building one another up,28 not about sell- powerful places Christians can be witnesses in the ing the features in the latest upgrade. digital age; because of the distributed nature of OSS Larry Wall, an evangelical Christian, is the founder development, they can rise to positions of real infl u- of a popular open source programming language, ence and respect, and cause others to do likewise. Perl.29 He has often spoken explicitly about this con- nection: “[I modeled] the Perl movement on another Helping Others movement … the founder [of which said], ‘He who One of the most compelling moral arguments made wishes to be greatest among you must become the in favor of OSS is that it allows sharing of one’s servant of all.’”30 Indeed, because developing OSS resources with others. This is a prominent theme is typically voluntary, there is a real subversion of of Glyn Moody’s Rebel Code, a major history of the traditional hierarchies. Project founders cannot be GNU/Linux operating system.36 Parris and Stallman autocrats, but they must convince developers of the are both extremely vocal on this. For Parris, it is technical superiority of their ideas. Wall says, partly because software piracy and “convenient” I began by talking about the virtues of a copying is so prevalent inside the church. Perhaps programmer: laziness, impatience, and hubris. ironically, Stallman, a staunch atheist, asks Christians These are virtues of passion. They are also virtues to call proprietary software demonic, since, in his of an individual. They are not, however, virtues of view, a putative Satan would like nothing better community. The virtues of community sound like than to hook people on things that are fun “on condi- their opposites: diligence, patience, and humility.31 tion that they refuse to share it with anyone else.”37 Volume 67, Number 1, March 2015 7 Article Open Source Software and Christian Thought (Scriptures such as Luke 6:34–35 probably more than issue.46 Typically, it is not worth the effort for a superfi cially support this view.38) normal software developer to continue providing versions of their software for such situations. With In general, there is debate over whether new technol- open source, the potential exists to keep things oper- ogy is good because it promotes effi ciency, or bad ating far longer than typically viable, although it is because it creates dependence. Jacques Ellul’s views not a guarantee that it will happen. As one exam- are well known: “Everything in the technological ple, MATLAB is currently dropping support for world is a means and only a means, while the ends Windows XP, which still has signifi cant market share have practically disappeared.”39 Nonetheless, within worldwide, while GNU Octave maintains it.47 the open source community (both from Christian and secular perspectives), there is a consensus that Two closely related points should be considered: working on OSS can indeed help others, particularly learning from OSS, and localization. A number of the underprivileged. studies (including some cited above) show that, outside a context where English is an expected Marco Fioretti, the founder of an Italian group of knowledge base, using or writing software without Catholics supporting OSS,40 quotes liberally from the language or visual cues appropriate to a culture papal encyclicals and scripture about repairing is unlikely; however, those with the language/cul- divides between rich and poor nations, and Baylor tural skills have many opportunities. Because the professor Alan Jacobs refers to the open source source is available, one can learn programming para- community as the “cyber-Amish.”41 In a personal digms (as already happens with web pages because communication, the founder of one open source pro- of Tim Berners-Lee’s insistence that one must be able gram says, to “view the source”); for the same reason, localiza- I think Sage is a form of contribution in a social tion is truly possible even for smaller fi rms in the sense. Open source is the way some nerdy types OSS context. A good example is an Italian thesaurus can best voluntarily contribute to society … I think contributed to OpenOffi ce by a school in Bologna.48 the really good people that are a pleasure to work But localization is not a guarantee, and requires with see the social contribution as something they infrastructure, as in the ANLoc African Locales greatly value. Initiative.49 Himanen cites the same idea, “a desire to rid the net- On the academic side, economists have done analyses work society of the survival mentality that so easily of accelerating knowledge transfer to the developing results from its logic.”42 Wall concurs, “People really world using OSS50 and have published case studies of do help people for the sake of helping people.”43 This whether and how it is used.51 Josh Lerner and Mark motivates those of no faith as well as those of faith. Schankerman’s analysis examines current practice and draws mixed conclusions, but reinforces the idea This argument also holds water empirically. To be that, even with large amounts of “comingling” of concrete, OSS properly organized—which is not a code, both small fi rms and large fi rms benefi t from given—has a number of important advantages in using OSS in varied cultural contexts.52 Weber makes granting opportunity toward those not in the digital a lengthy related argument with respect to exclusion elite. We give some examples from a development from the digital economy and dependency theory, point of view, though other ways of helping others though his argument also connects to freedom.53 can be analyzed similarly. From the pure acquisition cost perspective for its It may thus be a little surprising that, despite graduates, the African Institute of Mathematical many OSS Christian software projects, such as for Sciences, for example, has a blanket policy to use church databases, there are few examples of institu- OSS in all its dealings.44 The original vision of One tional religious activity in the open source world.54 Laptop Per Child was to use Linux for this same Columnist Bruce Byfi eld suggests several interesting reason. Bandwidth is also a cost issue in many ideas on why this might be, in a 2006 article in Linux circumstances.45 .com.55 Catholic commentators such as Fioretti have tried to interest their coreligionists in this, but it was Similarly, especially in the developing world, low- only in 2011 that Spadaro, in his fl agship Jesuit jour- end hardware or old operating systems is a real nal La Civiltà Cattolica, wrote a longer article about 8 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith