Sunday, September 21, 2014

Blog Action Day Coming Right up



Woo Hoo! Blog Action Day is coming up in October. This year the theme is inequality.

I guess everybody has something to say about that.

I'll be brooding upon the theme but e-mail me if you have brilliant insights to contribute:

emckenzi54@gmail.com

Wednesday, September 17, 2014



Two interesting articles on reading showed up yesterday. I couldn't resist. The New York Times ran an article by Alexandra Alter, "Line by Line, E-Books Turn Poet-Friendly." Readers (or writers) of poetry know that poems have a structure that matters. Line breaks, spacing and placement of words matter intensely to how the poem will be read and perceived.

So when the first e-books of poetry appeared a few years ago, the poet authors were taken aback to see that all formatting had been removed! According to Alter, at least one leading poet, John Ashbery requested his publisher withdraw the digital editions of his poetry books.

But now, e-books have managed to deliver digital versions of poetry that retain all the original formatting. The digital versions now are equivalent to print poetry editions. Some poets remain skeptical, according to Alter's article. But Ashbery just signed an agreement to release digital editions with Open Road for $15 each.

The second article yesterday was in the Wall Street Journal, by Jeanne Whalen, "Read Slowly to Benefit Your Brain and Cut Stress." Whalen reports on book clubs that are forming, not to discuss books, but to simply sit together silently and read. The article is actually a mish-mash of a bunch of different pieces of information about reading, some reported very briefly. It is possible that Whalen was severely edited. The article is frustrating because it mentions briefly a number of important points, but never fully explains them. The online article at WSJ does offer an entertaining "Test How Fast You Read" feature.

The reading club Whalen first reports on, from New Zealand, calls itself the Slow Reading Club. Slow reading is a major movement that has been growing for some years world wide. There is no particular leader, but there have been several books and a number of more in-depth popular and semi-popular articles about the process. I would recommend reading "Reading Fast, Reading Slow" by Jessica Love, from The American Scholar, Spring, 2012 for a much better explanation of the movement, and the science behind it. Love is a cognitive scientist who has done some of the investigations of reading and is a science writer and blogger.

For instance, when we read, our eyes don't smoothly sweep across the lines of text. We skip across the text, stopping periodically in what scholars of reading call "fixations." At each fixation, our eyes can take in about 4 letters to the left, and 15 to the right of the fixation point, on average. The letters at the edge of that perception range are fuzzy and may simply be guessed at in terms of general shape or lower/upper case. That information will speed up the reading at the next fixation, where those peripheral letters from the right will be more central. Meanwhile, we decode about 8 of the letters in the center of the fixation. Then we hop again, which the scholars call a "saccade." Love reports that reading scholars find that readers typically spend about 10% of reading time in those hops, "saccades," during which no reading is happening. There is a lot more detail in the article about how the reader quickly (or slowly, in the case of surprises) decodes words.

The article goes on to cover studies of speed-reading (mostly badly done), but a few of which are reliable to show that the faster you go, the less you recall. Slowing your reading, even because the text is illegible or missing some letters, increases retention of the content, apparently. Yoo-hoo, textbook editors! Here's an idea! Actually, can you imagine trying to read for class and have missing l_tt_rs? It w_uld dr_ve you cr_zy!

One thing the Whalen article on WSJ covers that is not mentioned in the older article from Dr. Love, is the research about what happens when people read online. Love mentions that most research on reading has been done online. But she does not say anything about the patterns discovered. Whalen mentions the F pattern. When readers in English (and I think other Western languages that read left to right) read web pages, researchers have found that the readers' eye movements follow an F pattern. The eyes scan completely across the page for the first few lines, then sweep down the left side of the screen. Web developers tend to know this fact and use it when they create those left hand panels and top tabs or menu bars. Or ads.

The decoration for this page is courtesy of http://weknowmemes.com/2012/08/scumbag-brain-on-reading/ (I am not sure you want to go there; I think it's not safe, but it had this nice image).

Sunday, September 07, 2014

Why do the vendors roll out new versions in September??!!



This year, Lexis has chosen to roll out a new version of Lexis Advance on September 8!

Why thank you guys!

Isn't that just the most thoughtful thing?

Librarians and teachers around the world are just loving having a brand new version that they need to scramble and get comfortable with just as their students are arriving.

Why couldn't they have released this back in June?

Well. I am guessing (with my cynic's hat on), that they didn't really want any testing and reviews floating around out there to taint the trumpet blasts and floating glory clouds as they rolled this out to students.

Of course, maybe they just hadn't finished debugging it in June. Maybe I shouldn't be so cynical.

Friday, September 05, 2014

Regulatory Activism

The public is commenting on proposed federal rules in record numbers, according to a story entitled "Federal Agencies Are Flooded by Comments on New Rules," published in the Wall Street Journal, September 3, 2014.  For instance, the State Department has received over 2.5 million comments on the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline.  The Federal Communications Commission has received over 1.26 million comments on net neutrality.  And the Environmental Protection Agency is processing "hundreds of thousands of comments on new emissions rules for power plants."  The comments come from several sources, including "groups with a stake in the outcome, organizations that rally similar-minded people to their cause and individuals who simply want to weigh in."  And the comments take different forms, including "legal-brief type treatises from affected businesses and interested groups, form-submitted comments written and sometimes bundled by interest groups, and letters from interested Americans, ranging from thoughtful to flippant." 

What accounts for the surge in comments?  With Congress unwilling or unable to act, the Obama Administration has used "executive actions to achieve its policy objectives," and the public has responded by waking "up to the potential of agency rule-making."  This is the opinion of Nuala O'Connor, president of the Center for Democracy and Technology.  An additional factor is undoubtedly the federal websites, such as regulations.gov, that encourage public involvement in rulemaking by facilitating the submission of comments. The volume of public comments over the last twelve months has "in some cases ... given [agencies] pause as they write final rules." 

The article explores how advocacy groups spur action by using social media and email to get the word out about proposed regulations.  The groups also generate form letters that individuals can send to the agency responsible for the regulation.  How do the agencies manage the high volume of comments they are receiving?  Agencies must respond for the official record.  One coping strategy is to group similar comments together and generate a common response.  However, a more thoughtful comment will usually receive an individualized response.  The agencies are currently managing the workload, but "experts question their ability to effectively handle that much public input." 

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

Kindle and Reading

I've got a Kindle, but use it mostly when I'm travelling so that I can have access to reading material without having to haul around lots of books in my suitcase.  I hate running out of books. During more than one foreign vacation, I have been forced to track down bookstores that stock English-language titles and then pay exorbitant prices for them.  With the Kindle, this problem goes away.  Most of what I read on my Kindle is fiction, which is why I was interested to learn that researchers have found that readers using the Kindle were "'significantly' worse than paperback readers at recalling when events occurred in a mystery story."  This conclusion comes from a recent study of fifty readers who read the same short story (half on a Kindle and half on print) that was reported in The Guardian.  The readers were tested on "aspects of the story including objects, characters and setting," and the "'Kindle readers performed significantly worse on the plot reconstruction measure.'"  The researchers can't explain their findings, but speculate that it has something to do with the tactile quality of paper and the physical unfolding of the book as the reader progresses through the story.  "Perhaps this somehow aids the reader, providing more fixity and solidity to the reader's sense of unfolding and progress of the text, and hence the story."  The study doesn't address the issue of reading nonfiction works on a Kindle, but the results might carry over--the same researcher has found that "'students who read texts in print scored significantly better on the reading comprehension test than students who read the text digitally.'"  More research is being conducted to determine which devices (print, iPad, Kindle) are suitable for which types of content, and this research should help educators deal with the impact of digitization on learning.         

Monday, August 11, 2014

Amazon versus Hatchette, round 3 or 4

Wow. The gloves are off! It was reported a while ago that the trade press Hachette was negotiating with Amazon on pricing. This happens each year as contracts come up for renewal. But this year is being different. According to some observers, Amazon is pressing harder for more profitability (due to shareholder pressures?). And also according to some observers, the Hachette negotiation is becoming something of a test case for other publishers. The chief executive of the company, Michael Pietsch is something of a hero to literary editors, having been the guy who out-bid everybody (by a huge amount) for David Foster Wallace's novel, eventually titled Infinite Jest. Pietsch spent years mid-wifing Wallace through the final re-writes and cutting process to produce what is considered a modern classic, published by Little, Brown a subsidiary of Hachette. Pietsch is an editor-hero, and apparently a good executive, now to the parent company. Other industry insiders are watching the negotiations intensely:

“In a sense, Michael Pietsch is like ‘Horatius at the Bridge,’ ” says the literary agent and former Amazon executive Laurence J. Kirshbaum, referring to the soldier of legend who single-handedly saved ancient Rome by fighting off an invading army. “He is carrying the rest of the industry on his back.”
(from NY Times article June 2, 2014, linked above)

But after several efforts on both sides, things are breaking down big time. On Sunday, August 10, 2014, 900 authors banded together as Authors United, signing a open letter, and taking out a full page ad in the New York Times. Authors United is the brainchild of author Douglas Preston. But many authors have signed, and a number of high profile authors helped pay for the Times ad. The letter complains that Hachette authors are being squeezed in the battle between Amazon and Hachette in the following ways:

--Boycotting Hachette authors, by refusing to accept pre-orders on Hachette authors' books and eBooks, claiming they are "unavailable."

--Refusing to discount the prices of many of Hachette authors' books.

--Slowing the delivery of thousands of Hachette authors' books to Amazon customers, indicating that delivery will take as long as several weeks on most titles.

--Suggesting on some Hachette authors' pages that readers might prefer a book from a non-Hachette author instead.
The list of signatories includes many authors who are NOT Hachette authors. They just feel the practices are unfair to authors and to the consumers as well. Read the complete letter which calls on Amazon to resolve its differences with Hachette without further hurting authors or blocking or delaying shipments and sales to customers. (Over the weekend, it became known that Amazon was engaging in the same blocking/delaying tactics with another producer/publisher in negotiations with the sales giant: Disney. Might be an interesting fight, and one with a little more equal weight.)

The New York Times ad from Authors United was a little more in-your-face than the letter. The ad included the e-mail address for Jeff Bezos, the chief executive of Amazon. It reproduced the open letter, but the inclusion of Bezos' e-mail address implicitly encouraged readers to contact the man with readers' opinions on the matter.

Amazon has responded. They created a counter organization, Readers United with a web page attempting to present the history of publishing's antagonism to the introduction of the paperback book. Unfortunately for Amazon, they did a sloppy job of research, and quote George Orwell, of all people, trying to implicate him as one of those opposed to paperbacks, and trying to show that he was promoting collusion of the publishers to suppress publication of paperback books. (I think they are trying to remind folks that Hachette is among the publishers called to task by the Justice Department recently for colluding with Apple to increase pricing of e-books on the Kindle.) The web page also gives readers the e-mail address for Hachette CEO Michael Pietsch (who actually had nothing to do with the Authors United ad, as far as I know), and offers a number of rather aggressive suggestions for e-mails to him:
We have noted your illegal collusion. Please stop working so hard to overcharge for ebooks. They can and should be less expensive.
Lowering e-book prices will help — not hurt — the reading culture, just like paperbacks did.
Stop using your authors as leverage and accept one of Amazon's offers to take them out of the middle.
Especially if you're an author yourself: Remind them that authors are not united on this issue.
As to the quote from George Orwell, though Amazon's Readers' United page asserts that he advocated suppressing paperbacks, that simply misunderstands what he wrote:
When Orwell wrote that line, he was celebrating paperbacks published by Penguin, not urging suppression or collusion. Here is what the writer actually said in The New English Weekly on March 5, 1936: “The Penguin Books are splendid value for sixpence, so splendid that if the other publishers had any sense they would combine against them and suppress them.”

Orwell then went on to undermine Amazon’s argument for cheap e-books. “It is, of course, a great mistake to imagine that cheap books are good for the book trade,” he wrote, saying that the opposite was true.

“The cheaper books become,” he wrote, “the less money is spent on books.”

Instead of buying two expensive books, he said, the consumer will buy three cheap books and then use the rest of the money to go to the movies. “This is an advantage from the reader’s point of view and doesn’t hurt trade as a whole, but for the publisher, the compositor, the author and the bookseller, it is a disaster,” Orwell wrote.
(from NY Times article of 8/11/14.)

But the Orwell mis-quote has boomeranged on Amazon in the Internet world. To mis-quote and mis-represent a hero of TRUTH, mis-using his words for your own commercial purposes is a pretty bad move in the cyberworld, I think. It's especially ironic coming from the company that brought you the 99 cent 1984... and then took it away again. Actually, Orwell's original essay is pretty darned apposite. He was balancing the interests of readers, who are naturally pleased to get cheaper books (I know I am -- sorry), against the interests of authors, and all those who work in publishing, who are getting (despite what Amazon asserts), a SMALLER PIE, when books cost less. People really don't spend the same amount or MORE on books when they cost less. They buy the same number of books they were going to get in the first place, and pocket the money they saved, to buy something else. This is very nice for Jeff Bezos and Amazon, who have spread their marketing into LOTS of new areas. Amazon sells nearly everything on earth now. So they really do have a bigger pie. But for authors, and publishers, compositors, type designers, etc. -- all those folks who in print or digital worlds still are needed to produce books --- cheaper books translate to a smaller pie. No matter how Amazon wants to cut it.

There are a few voices out there supporting Amazon. Hugh Howey, Damien Walters. It's quite true that there is a balance point in the market where if you charge too much for e-books, or make them too hard to get, you will lose your market, which is the point of some of these folks. People will not pay above $9.99 or so for most trade e-books, apparently. Don't know why. But despite the fact that you save on printing and paper, and delivery, there are still sunk costs to an e-book. The author's time and the compositor still has to lay out the book in an attractive way. Anybody who has tried to read an e-book from Project Gutenberg will quickly see the difference in a nice modern lay-out compared to the less effective layouts from the books at Gutenberg that are out of copyright!

The image decorating this post is bare knuckle boxers from the 1820's - evidently a collectible print. See http://www.lordprice.co.uk/SPBX1038.html for the original site.

Monday, July 28, 2014

Purge? WTF?! Yet another form of cyberbullying



Wow! Social media has spawned a new form of cyberbullying, and surprise, surprise, it tends to focus on females. Purge happened worldwide on Facebook between July 17 and 19, with supposedly anonymous posts saying whatever folks liked about anybody they wanted, tagging and posting images. I think it started as a promo for a new movie that was just being released, "The Purge: Anarchy." The Purge for some may have been about anarchy and fighting power, from a few posts I saw. But apparently it quickly turned into a misogynistic woman-bash, posting and trading nude images and videos. Instagram was involved in the Purge as well. The Guardian is on the story. Their story focuses on Twitter, and the use of images as "revenge porn" where exes post nude images of their former lovers on social media.

It is new enough as a term that it's hard to search for online, but you can find Instagram links and there is a Twitter hashtag #stopthepurge. I stumbled on this sad new phenomenon because a Taunton, Massachusetts 14 year old (girl, of course -- did you have to ask?) committed suicide this summer, apparently after something like a purge attack. See story here from the Patriot Ledger. There seem to be several local purge attacks that boiled along after the big Facebook one. There was a Brockton Purge, for instance (a small town south of Boston), and I found a reference to a Kansas City Purge as well.

Apparently, ex-boyfriends (ex-girlfriends, too, I suppose, though I haven't seen an example) who received nude images from women while still in a relationship take revenge by posting them after the relationship breaks up. Then they post the nude images widely, with ugly commentary. Classy move.

Too late to learn this important lesson: You are going to go through a number of relationships in your life, before you (hopefully) end in a long-term happy marriage. Don't hand out nude images to everybody you link up with along the way! You might think he's the ONE, but there is just no hurry to supply him with nude images (no matter what he says). If he is Mr. Right, he won't be badgering you for nude pix, honey!

There are a number of posts claiming different numbers of suicides, arrests, homicides connected with "The Purge." It is not clear how many, if any really happened. It is true, however, that many teen suicides have been connected to sexting, which is basically what much of the Purge harassment turned into. It's easy to say that a suicide in response to such public shaming is an over-reaction. But on the Internet, you cannot get the image back. Once it's out there, it's out of your control. And even if the first poster regrets his action and removes the post. Even if Facebook removes all the posts that can be found, these images proliferate and scatter beyond recall. That image really is out there, forever.

What a hateful, misogynistic thing.

Thursday, July 03, 2014

Facebook, Secret Experiments and the Belmont Report

Facebook is eating some crow. Again.

Most OOTJ readers will have read about Facebook's data scientist, Adam D.I. Kramer and two academic partner running an experiment using Facebook users. The results were published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, (PNAS), "Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks." But what got people riled was the inflammatory language used in the abstract and press releases:
We show, via a massive (N = 689,003) experiment on Facebook, that emotional states can be transferred to others via emotional contagion, leading people to experience the same emotions without their awareness.
People reacted with outrage, feeling that Facebook had (once again!) abused their membership in that social media giant. They did NOT like being manipulated without their knowledge. The experiment was really fairly benign, with a tweak to the algorithm showing a selection of users more positive newsfeed content, and others reduced positive newsfeed content. The experimenters then monitored the types of posts the various users made and judged whether they became more positive or more negative.

The woman who edited the paper for the PNAS, Susan Fiske, has been quoted as finding the experiment creepy and troubling. She did interview the researchers and found that they had cleared the experiment with an Institutional Review Board. Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) are mandated by several federal agencies for any organization carrying out research on human subjects. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Health and Human Services' Office for Human Research Protections (HHS' OHRP) are the two main agencies, and CFR main sections are 21 CFR Part 56 (FDA regulations on Institutional Review Boards), and 45 CFR Part 46 (the Common Core or Common Rule, from ORHP) are the most important and useful regulations.

The impetus for the development of IRBs and the protection of human research subjects was a series of high profile, cruel medical research projects through the 20th century that shocked the conscience of the nation. The Belmont Report was the crystallization of a series of meetings by a group of physicians, scientists, ethicists, lawyers and lay leaders on the problem of how to protect human subjects of all types of research in the future. It is the basis for all future regulations and for decision-making by IRBs, who are supposed to keep the interests of the research subjects at the center of their deliberations, while balancing the interests of researchers. There is also some thought for the interests of the organization they represent as well. But three principles are supposed to be the primary concern of the IRB:

1. Respect for Persons (requires the researcher to both acknowledge the individual as an autonomous person AND to protect individuals who may be diminished in their autonomous capacity)
2. Beneficence (will the research benefit the research subject?)
3. Justice (who bears the burdens of the research and receives the benefits?)

The IRB then looks at three main issues in the proposed research:

1. Informed Consent (This may be waived in very narrow circumstances: The principle of Respect for Persons requires in most cases that research subjects know what is being proposed to be done to them and have a chance to voluntarily choose to participate or withdraw with no consequences. 45 CFR Part 46.116 lays out the basic requirements for Informed Consent. More on waiver below.)
2. Assessment of Risk and Benefits (The principle of Beneficence requires that the research balance the risks to subjects against the potential benefits, either to the subjects or generally.)
3. Selection of Subjects (The principle of Justice requires that the selection of subjects for the research be done equitably, so that, for instance, not all research ends up being done on poor subjects unless there is a reason related to the topic of research.)

Waiver of Informed Consent

45 CFR Part 45.115 (d) allows IRBs to approve research with consent procedures that alter or waive some or all of the general requirements if they find:
(1) The research involves no more than minimal risk to the subjects;

(2) The waiver or alteration will not adversely affect the rights and welfare of the subjects;

(3) The research could not practicably be carried out without the waiver or alteration; and

(4) Whenever appropriate, the subjects will be provided with additional pertinent information after participation.
This was probably the provision under which the IRB approved the waiver, although the response of Facebook to user outrage is that users had consented to the research by clicking the "agree" when they signed up for their accounts. I do not think such click amounts to any such consent for IRB informed consent purposes, and it certainly has not mollified any outraged users. Kramer has said that the research was undertaken because they wanted to test "the common worry that seeing friends post positive comments causes people to feel left out or negative, or that seeing too many negative posts might stop them from using the site." Yet people felt manipulated and that their trust was violated. The research probably does meet IRB/Belmont standards, but the reporting of the research was done in a ham-handed and inflammatory style that left Facebook users feeling used and disrespected. Ideally, after a secret or deceptive research project, subjects are supposed to be informed about the research, in a way that helps them, not makes them feel used or deceived. This is the Respect for Persons principle.

This is not the first time that Facebook has manipulated and experimented with its users. In September, 2012, Facebook reported on an experiment that boosted voter turnout in a mid-term election. They divided users 18 and older into three groups.
About 611,000 users (1%) received an 'informational message' at the top of their news feeds, which encouraged them to vote, provided a link to information on local polling places and included a clickable 'I voted' button and a counter of Facebook users who had clicked it. About 60 million users (98%) received a 'social message', which included the same elements but also showed the profile pictures of up to six randomly selected Facebook friends who had clicked the 'I voted' button. The remaining 1% of users were assigned to a control group that received no message.

The researchers then compared the groups' online behaviours, and matched 6.3 million users with publicly available voting records to see which group was actually most likely to vote in real life.

The results showed that those who got the informational message voted at the same rate as those who saw no message at all. But those who saw the social message were 2% more likely to click the 'I voted' button and 0.3% more likely to seek information about a polling place than those who received the informational message, and 0.4% more likely to head to the polls than either other group.

The social message, the researchers estimate, directly increased turnout by about 60,000 votes. But a further 280,000 people were indirectly nudged to the polls by seeing messages in their news feeds, for example, telling them that their friends had clicked the 'I voted' button. “The online social network helps to quadruple the effect of the message,” says [James] Fowler, [political scientist, University of California, San Diego].
(from online journal Nature, doi:10.1038/nature.2012.11401, link above). The report notes that only close real-world friends had the effect of increasing voting activity. The researchers also used real world voting data to check for those who simply clicked the "I voted" button, but didn't vote. This research did not cause the backlash that the recent experiment did. It did not seem as manipulative to people, or as deceptive. There are a few comments in media considering what would happen if a social media giant were to decide to use such tactics to nudge an election to one side or another, as opposed to simply increasing voting generally, or how it could impact elections just by increasing voter turnout. (New York Times sort of mention Sept., 2012, and Comment from Hiawatha Bray in Boston Globe July 3, 2014, bringing the old research up in new context of the new one).

Saturday, June 14, 2014

Authors Guild, Inc. v. Hathi Trust

The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a ruling in the case of Authors Guild v. Hathi Trust. See Justia for full text of ALL pleadings including the decision.

See Assn. of Research Libraries' posting here for some partisan explanation and hyperlinks to amicus briefs.

The Authors Guild website does not offer documents, but does have statements.

And the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) offers another point of view, placing the lawsuit in the context of the Google Books project law suits.

The clearest, most succinct summary of the ruling comes from a business lawyer blogger who runs Recording INdustry vs. The People, who posted a report on Friday June 13, 2014, "Second Circuit OKs Scanning Whole Books." He summarizes the background that the Hathi Trust members began scanning books, participating in the Google Book Project (The Trust members are very large research libraries, mostly at large, research universities). The books are owned, in the libraries' collections. The trust began making a searchable database of the full text of the books available to 3 groups of people:

1. The public may search with key word searches. The results come back, showing no text of the works, but only showing the frequency of the words, and page numbers on which the words occur.

2. People with disabilities which prevent them from holding or manipulating books, turning pages may have access to the full text of the books. [note from Betsy: This is a different population than those usually served. Most disability programs are designed for visually impaired readers, and they are well served. Those who cannot hold print books or manage them with their hands have no programs that I know of.]

3. Members of the Hathi Trust (that is, the libraries) could replace lost, stolen or damaged books with a copy made from a digital version, IF they could not purchase a replacement on the market at a "fair" price.

The 3 judge panel ruled that the first two uses by access groups do not violate the copyrights of the Author Guild rightsholders. They ruled that the Authors Guild does not have standing to challenge the 3rd use.

Saturday, June 07, 2014

Heartbleed 2 only affects Android users - but it's a wake-up call



I don't know if OOTJ readers saw the news about the new problems spotted in OpenSSL code. Dubbed at first, Heartbleed 2, it has later been called the Handshake Bug, because it affects how your computer performs the "handshake" protocol when it contacts a server. See News at CNN here. The author at CNN refers to an earlier article which brought up the issue that this critical piece of software, used by businesses worldwide, is maintained by a small band of volunteers, only one of whom can devote full time attention to the task. This is a different take on the matter, which I saw turned in a different light. But according to the more recent article, businesses are suddenly seeing the importance of this software which they have used for free for years, and are donating mazoodles of cash to help fund some better maintenance of the program.

Can you say Tragedy of the Commons? Only sort of. Like most things tech, there is not a limited amount of pie. Everybody using the program is not degrading the program, or using it up like a finite resource -- the grass on the commons eaten by everybody's sheep. However, you had a problem of everybody being free riders and the volunteers who were [happily, one supposes] maintaining the program, only had so much free time to give to the effort. Interesting problem of the modern world.

So, in the emergency moment, at least, large corporations are making donations to the OpenSSL Software Foundation, in response to an open letter from Foundation president Steve Marquess. This organization underwrites the voluntary, collaborative efforts to maintain and improve OpenSSL. Marquess is looking for both donations of money and of staff time.