The only way for all software to ever be open source is through...

[user1397]

Ok, I guess I didn't read up enough on the subject. No I don't think RMS is a commie, and I guess I agree the most with what koenn and phrostbyte said (about FLOSS not being directly related to economics).

Guess I'll mark this as solved.

------------------

OP:

Dare I say it...yes....a communist world (true communism, not a government, not a regime, the entire world)

I just thought about this. Open source software is basically the sharing of code and therefore knowledge for anybody's use and amusement. It is basically a communist idea (sorry if that just sounds so bad, but I mean communist in the purest sense of the word, aka I don't mean Maoism or Lenin-ism or Stalin-ism) whether you like it or not.

Now, if all software in the entire world were open source, then the entire world would have to be communist, because in a capitalist world people can claim software as their property (just as they can claim land or objects as their own).
I'm not saying that's necessarily a good thing (or a bad thing :popcorn:) but I just think that all of these nuts like RMS need to realize that before being so zealous about it.

Yup, I am prepared to be flamed, mocked, trolled, cursed, and many other things, but please keep it civil people :)

OK and seriously, if this gets locked because of politics, that's just too bad because I am just talking about software and an ideology, I don't think I'm offending anyone by posting this (and if you are offended, then please PM me and tell me why)

[JDShu]

A purely communist world? I'm not so sure about that. What if we just had a law that made proprietary software illegal? We could still have a society like todays, just no proprietary software.

[user1397]

A purely communist world? I'm not so sure about that. What if we just had a law that made proprietary software illegal? We could still have a society like todays, just no proprietary software.yea, except money is more powerful than laws, and no such laws would ever pass

[bruno9779]

Unlike land and resources, we are not forced to make use of proprietary SW.
If people just stopped using proprietary systems, many businesses would be cheaper to run and the SW corps would crumble quickly.

People realize that there are free alternatives but what keeps the game going is that people want hip toys more than functionality

[JDShu]

ahahaha I guess my point is that a purely communist world is impossible to bring about. A law to ban proprietary software is also impossible to bring about. Maybe less impossible (yes, that makes no sense). However, if we're talking about ideal worlds, in both of the above situations we have all software being open source. Which contradicts your theory.

[koenn]

Open source software is basically the sharing of code and therefore knowledge for anybody's use and amusement. It is basically a communist idea
No, it's not.
Sharing of knowledge is the cornerstone of education, science, and academic research. So you're saying those would only work well in a communist world?
Nonsense.

[matthew.ball]

That's a fair claim actually.

I think the analogy works better when compared to scientific knowledge, and I'm assuming that's what Richard Stallman is basing his own philosophies on.

Just imagine if people charged money to use their mathematical equations - and after all, an algorithm is just a mathematical equation. What follows is pretty obvious.

Edit: Yep, koenn has it.

[koenn]

just think that all of these nuts like RMS need to realize that before being so zealous about it.

Yup, I am prepared to be flamed, mocked, trolled, cursed, and many other things, but please keep it civil people :)

right.
I suppose the smiley next to 'keep it civil' indicates that that request isn't to be taken seriously ?

[phrostbyte]

FLOSS isn't really a communist idea at all. I wouldn't call it "capitalist", either, because neither is relevant.

It's more of a movement not directly considering economics. There is two different viewpoints, the "open source" and the "free software" viewpoint. Open source movement thinks that open source leads to better software. One open source idea is the "many eyeballs principal", that software gets better when more people are able to look at the code.

Free software movement is more considered of the ethics of free software. They view proprietary software as inherently antisocial and even hostile. They do not dispute the pragmatic aspect that the "open source movement" follow, but don't view it as inherently important.

[phrostbyte]

No, it's not.
Sharing of knowledge is the cornerstone of education, science, and academic research. So you're saying those would only work well in a communist world?
Nonsense.

Yes, I think free software is basically scientific Enlightenment ideals being applied to software (eg: publish your work, build on the work of others). While proprietary software is more like Dark Ages Alchemy (hide your work, compete with others). I think RMS made a similar analogy.

[mickie.kext]

I think that free software is actually capitalism at its best. Competing for everyones sake and everyone can make money. Not much, but enough.

Microsoft and proprietary software companies look more like imperialism. They just colonize entire markets and make sure they are only one making money and that everyone has to pay tool to them.

For a small startup software company, it is actually harder to make money and turn profit with closed source software. With open source, you can leverage someone else's work. With going proprietary, you have to do all by yourself.

[lykwydchykyn]

@OP: you might want to read this:

http://catb.org/~esr/writings/magic-cauldron/

It's a pretty good POV on the economics of open source, and how it works into the free market/capitalism, etc.

[katie-xx]

If people just stopped using proprietary systems, many businesses would be cheaper to run and the SW corps would crumble quickly.


Gosh I wish that was true. You would be surprised, Im sure, at the procurement costs of large software suites for a company of, say 500 people or more. Support and maintenance can be very expensive indeed for open source (or free) software.
I do think its possible to do something about this because there is a genuine shortage of people with the right skills and its all a matter of supply and demand.
Kate

[Simon17]

RMS doesn't try to hide that fact that he's a communist, so I'd say you're on base there.

And phrostbyte, you can have all the eyes in the world, but eyes are worthless unless they're attached to a decent programmer.

[t0p]

A lot of people try to write off Stallman as a communist. Some of these people say this because they believe it. But those who actually know something about free software know very well that RMS isn't a communist. They say it just to smear him and put him down.

Those who actually believe that he's a communist and that the free software movement is communism make this mistake because they have failed to understand what free software actually means. They make the error of thinking that free software is free as in price. Whereas if you are familiar with Stallman's beliefs, you'll know that he advocates making money from software.

This is why it's more accurate to liken free software to a free and open exchange of ideas rather than an economic model. Capitalism and free software can co-exist... if only the capitalists gave up the idea of software patents and renting software to customers instead of selling it!

[audiomick]

I think that free software is actually capitalism at its best. Competing for everyones sake and everyone can make money. Not much, but enough.

Microsoft and proprietary software companies look more like imperialism. They just colonize entire markets and make sure they are only one making money and that everyone has to pay tool to them

The flaw in the argument that I see is that the logical ultimate conclusion is that the most successful capitalist of all ends up owning everything, ergo capitalism = imperialism.

Microsoft and similar companies are just successful capitalists, and examples for why the system isn't the answer to the worlds problems. But communism probably isn't either. There has to be some sort of motivation for people to strive for success.

[Groucho Marxist]

FLOSS isn't really a communist idea at all. I wouldn't call it "capitalist", either, because neither is relevant.

Exactly; to me, code is code. The package for politics is installed separately.

[jrusso2]

RMS doesn't try to hide that fact that he's a communist, so I'd say you're on base there.

And phrostbyte, you can have all the eyes in the world, but eyes are worthless unless they're attached to a decent programmer.

I have read articles by some of the original open source developers and they have readily admit to being socialists.

I don't have a problem with it since I consider myself socialist.

[user1397]

@OP: you might want to read this:

http://catb.org/~esr/writings/magic-cauldron/ (http://catb.org/%7Eesr/writings/magic-cauldron/)

It's a pretty good POV on the economics of open source, and how it works into the free market/capitalism, etc.
Seems like a very decent article, will read it when I get the chance.

[Simon17]

People realize that there are free alternatives but what keeps the game going is that people want hip toys more than functionality functionality more than spinning cubes

Much better.

[mickie.kext]

The flaw in the argument that I see is that the logical ultimate conclusion is that the most successful capitalist of all ends up owning everything, ergo capitalism = imperialism.

Microsoft and similar companies are just successful capitalists, and examples for why the system isn't the answer to the worlds problems. But communism probably isn't either. There has to be some sort of motivation for people to strive for success.

Capitalism does not turn in imperialism necessarily. Look at European capitalism. European Commission does not let imperialism happen. That in fact is social-democracy. A hybrid, better form of capitalism. But I will stop here because it goes into politics sphere, and I think that is not allowed here.

A lot of people try to write off Stallman as a communist. Some of these people say this because they believe it. But those who actually know something about free software know very well that RMS isn't a communist. They say it just to smear him and put him down.

Those who actually believe that he's a communist and that the free software movement is communism make this mistake because they have failed to understand what free software actually means. They make the error of thinking that free software is free as in price. Whereas if you are familiar with Stallman's beliefs, you'll know that he advocates making money from software.

This is why it's more accurate to liken free software to a free and open exchange of ideas rather than an economic model. Capitalism and free software can co-exist... if only the capitalists gave up the idea of software patents and renting software to customers instead of selling it!
Exactly, that is whole point. Stallman takes pride in fact that he made money from distributing and supporting Emacs:
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html

GNU Emacs

I began work on GNU Emacs in September 1984, and in early 1985 it was beginning to be usable. This enabled me to begin using Unix systems to do editing; having no interest in learning to use vi or ed, I had done my editing on other kinds of machines until then.

At this point, people began wanting to use GNU Emacs, which raised the question of how to distribute it. Of course, I put it on the anonymous ftp server on the MIT computer that I used. (This computer, prep.ai.mit.edu, thus became the principal GNU ftp distribution site; when it was decommissioned a few years later, we transferred the name to our new ftp server.) But at that time, many of the interested people were not on the Internet and could not get a copy by ftp. So the question was, what would I say to them?

I could have said, “Find a friend who is on the net and who will make a copy for you.” Or I could have done what I did with the original PDP-10 Emacs: tell them, “Mail me a tape and a SASE, and I will mail it back with Emacs on it.” But I had no job, and I was looking for ways to make money from free software. So I announced that I would mail a tape to whoever wanted one, for a fee of $150. In this way, I started a free software distribution business, the precursor of the companies that today distribute entire Linux-based GNU systems.

[V for Vincent]

I think it'd be a bad thing if *all* software were open. Way I see it, propriety software devs need to keep on their toes to compete with Free alternatives and vice versa. In other words, the quality of software benefits from the existing competition.

[pricetech]

While it would be nice to live in a world where everyone shared ideas, and the fruit of those ideas, openly, I wouldn't want to live in a world where it was mandated.

I'd rather see closed source go the way of the dinosaur because people chose to use open source instead, not because we beat it to death.

[mickie.kext]

I think it'd be a bad thing if *all* software were open. Way I see it, propriety software devs need to keep on their toes to compete with Free alternatives and vice versa. In other words, the quality of software benefits from the existing competition.

I do not see why would be bad if all software was open. Free Software projects are competing each other too, you know. There are companies behind most projects, and some project are entirely corporate funded.

[ElSlunko]

LOL. That was pretty funny. It does scare me to think that people think that community or the village mentality is a bad thing. It's just us individuals living in our box-unit on our own.

Edit : Also think the fear of the Reds storming Alaska is awesome.