book index markup related touches

4 files changed, 12 insertions, 8 deletions

diff --git a/data/samples/current/en/democratizing_innovation.eric_von_hippel.sst b/data/samples/current/en/democratizing_innovation.eric_von_hippel.sst
index 83cb392..edde8a3 100644
--- a/data/samples/current/en/democratizing_innovation.eric_von_hippel.sst
+++ b/data/samples/current/en/democratizing_innovation.eric_von_hippel.sst
@@ -111,7 +111,8 @@ Then I remembered the "Chip," a small experimental board we had built with foots
 
 The whole sport of high-performance windsurfing really started from that. As soon as I did it, there were about ten of us who sailed all the time together and within one or two days there were various boards out there that had footstraps of various kinds on them, and we were all going fast and jumping waves and stuff. It just kind of snowballed from there. (Shah 2000)
 ={ Shah, S. ;
-   windsurfing +1 }
+   windsurfing +1
+}
 
 By 1998, more than a million people were engaged in windsurfing, and a large fraction of the boards sold incorporated the user-developed innovations for the high-performance sport.
 
@@ -2043,7 +2044,8 @@ By freely revealing information about an innovative product or process, a user m
 
 A variation of this argument applies to the free revealing among competing manufacturers documented by Henkel (2003). Competing developers of embedded Linux systems were creating software that was specifically designed to run the hardware products of their specific clients. Each manufacturer could freely reveal this equipment-specific code without fear of direct competitive repercussions: it was applicable mainly to specific products made by a manufacturer's client, and it was less valuable to others. At the same time, all would jointly benefit from free revealing of improvements to the underlying embedded Linux code base, upon which they all build their proprietary products. After all, the competitive advantages of all their products depended on this code base's being equal to or better than the proprietary software code used by other manufacturers of similar products. Additionally, Linux software was a complement to hardware that many of the manufacturers in Henkel's sample also sold. Improved Linux software would likely increase sales of their complementary hardware products. (Complement suppliers' incentives to innovate have been modeled by Harhoff (1996).)
 ={ Linux ;
-   Henkel, J. }
+   Henkel, J.
+}
 
 !_ Free Revealing and Reuse
 ={ Free revealing of innovation information +2 }
@@ -2697,7 +2699,7 @@ Interesting examples also exist regarding on the impact a commons can have on th
    Linux ;
    Weber, S. ;
    Intellectual property rights :
-     licensing of +1 ;
+     licensing of +1
 }
 
 Similar actions can keep conditions for free access to materials held within a commons from degrading and being lost over time. Chris Hanson, a Principal Research Scientist at MIT, illustrates this with an anecdote regarding an open source software component called ipfilter. The author of ipfilter attempted to "lock" the program by changing licensing terms of his program to disallow the distribution of modified versions. His reasoning was that Ipfilter, a network-security filter, must be as bug-free as possible, and that this could best be ensured by his controlling access. His actions ignited a flame war in which the author was generally argued to be selfish and overreaching. His program, then an essential piece of BSD operating systems, was replaced by newly written code in some systems within the year. The author, Hanson notes, has since changed his licensing terms back to a standard BSD-style (unrestricted) license.
diff --git a/data/samples/current/en/free_culture.lawrence_lessig.sst b/data/samples/current/en/free_culture.lawrence_lessig.sst
index e720f9d..588da66 100644
--- a/data/samples/current/en/free_culture.lawrence_lessig.sst
+++ b/data/samples/current/en/free_culture.lawrence_lessig.sst
@@ -487,7 +487,8 @@ We live in a world that celebrates "property." I am one of those celebrants. I b
 But it takes just a second's reflection to realize that there is plenty of value out there that "property" doesn't capture. I don't mean "money can't buy you love," but rather, value that is plainly part of a process of production, including commercial as well as noncommercial production. If Disney animators had stolen a set of pencils to draw Steamboat Willie, we'd have no hesitation in condemning that taking as wrong - even though trivial, even if unnoticed. Yet there was nothing wrong, at least under the law of the day, with Disney's taking from Buster Keaton or from the Brothers Grimm. There was nothing wrong with the taking from Keaton because Disney's use would have been considered "fair." There was nothing wrong with the taking from the Grimms because the Grimms' work was in the public domain.
 ={ Disney, Walt +5 ;
    Grimm fairy tales +1 ;
-   Keaton, Buster }
+   Keaton, Buster
+}
 
 Thus, even though the things that Disney took - or more generally, the things taken by anyone exercising Walt Disney creativity - are valuable, our tradition does not treat those takings as wrong. Some things remain free for the taking within a free culture, and that freedom is good.
 ={ free culture :
@@ -3029,7 +3030,8 @@ Concentration in size alone is one thing. The more invidious change is in the na
 ={ Fallows, James +1 ;
    radio :
      ownership concentration in +2 ;
-   Murdoch, Rupert +1 }
+   Murdoch, Rupert +1
+}
 
 ``` quote
 Murdoch's companies now constitute a production system unmatched in its integration. They supply content - Fox movies ... Fox TV shows ... Fox-controlled sports broadcasts, plus newspapers and books. They sell the content to the public and to advertisers - in newspapers, on the broadcast network, on the cable channels. And they operate the physical distribution system through which the content reaches the customers. Murdoch's satellite systems now distribute News Corp. content in Europe and Asia; if Murdoch becomes DirecTV's largest single owner, that system will serve the same function in the United States."~{ James Fallows, "The Age of Murdoch," /{Atlantic Monthly}/ (September 2003): 89. }~
diff --git a/data/samples/current/en/two_bits.christopher_kelty.sst b/data/samples/current/en/two_bits.christopher_kelty.sst
index 57c6249..63fde12 100644
--- a/data/samples/current/en/two_bits.christopher_kelty.sst
+++ b/data/samples/current/en/two_bits.christopher_kelty.sst
@@ -1564,7 +1564,8 @@ The movement, as a practice of discussion and argument, is made up of stories. I
 Stories of the movement are also stories of a recursive public. The fact that movement isn’t quite the right word is evidence of a kind of grasping, a figuring out of why these practices make sense to all these geeks, in this place and time; it is a practice that is not so different from my own ethnographic engagement with it. Note that both Free Software and Open Source tell stories of movement(s): they are not divided by a commercial-noncommercial line, even if they are divided by ill-defined and hazy notions of their ultimate goals. The problem of a recursive public (or, in an alternate language, a recursive market) as a social imaginary of moral and technical order is common to both of them as part of their practices. Thus, stories about "the movement" are detailed stories about the technical and moral order that geeks inhabit, and they are bound up with the functions and fates of the Internet. Often these stories are themselves practices of inclusion and exclusion (e.g., "this license is not a Free Software license" or "that software is not an open system"); sometimes the stories are normative definitions about how Free Software should look. But they are, always, stories that reveal the shared moral and technical imaginations that make up Free Software as a recursive public.
 ={ moral and technical order ;
    recursive public ;
-   social imaginary }
+   social imaginary
+}
 
 2~ Conclusion
 
@@ -1938,7 +1939,7 @@ Openness is an unruly concept. While free tends toward ambiguity (free as in spe
 In this chapter I tell the story of the contest over the meaning of "open systems" from 1980 to 1993, a contest to create a simultaneously moral and technical infrastructure within the computer ,{[pg 144]}, industry.~{ Moral in this usage signals the "moral and social order" I explored through the concept of social imaginaries in chapter 1. Or, in the Scottish Enlightenment sense of Adam Smith, it points to the right organization and relations of exchange among humans. }~ The infrastructure in question includes technical components—the UNIX operating system and the TCP/IP protocols of the Internet as open systems—but it also includes "moral" components, including the demand for structures of fair and open competition, antimonopoly and open markets, and open-standards processes for high-tech networked computers and software in the 1980s.~{ There is, of course, a relatively robust discourse of open systems in biology, sociology, systems theory, and cybernetics; however, that meaning of open systems is more or less completely distinct from what openness and open systems came to mean in the computer industry in the period book-ended by the arrivals of the personal computer and the explosion of the Internet (ca. 1980-93). One relevant overlap between these two meanings can be found in the work of Carl Hewitt at the MIT Media Lab and in the interest in "agorics" taken by K. Eric Drexler, Bernardo Huberman, and Mark S. Miller. See Huberman, The Ecology of Computation. }~ By moral, I mean imaginations of the proper order of collective political and commercial action; referring to much more than simply how individuals should act, moral signifies a vision of how economy and society should be ordered collectively.
 ={ infrastructure ;
    moral and technical order +3 ;
-   monopoly +1 ;
+   monopoly +1
 }
 
 The open-systems story is also a story of the blind spot of open systems—in that blind spot is intellectual property. The story reveals a tension between incompatible moral-technical orders: on the one hand, the promise of multiple manufacturers and corporations creating interoperable components and selling them in an open, heterogeneous market; on the other, an intellectual-property system that encouraged jealous guarding and secrecy, and granted monopoly status to source code, designs, and ideas in order to differentiate products and promote competition. The tension proved irresolvable: without shared source code, for instance, interoperable operating systems are impossible. Without interoperable operating systems, internetworking and portable applications are impossible. Without portable applications that can run on any system, open markets are impossible. Without open markets, monopoly power reigns.
diff --git a/data/samples/current/en/viral_spiral.david_bollier.sst b/data/samples/current/en/viral_spiral.david_bollier.sst
index e82418e..dee9463 100644
--- a/data/samples/current/en/viral_spiral.david_bollier.sst
+++ b/data/samples/current/en/viral_spiral.david_bollier.sst
@@ -3084,7 +3084,6 @@ By getting the CC licenses integrated into so many types of software and Web ser
      copyright law, and ;
    Internet :
      communication system, as +1 ;
-    ;
    Creative Commons (CC) :
      growth of +2
 }