5 ms·

I know that this will annoy some people, and believe me, I mean this with a very small 'c', however I think that the open source movement is far and away the mo

I know that this will annoy some people, and believe me, I mean this with a very small 'c', however I think that the open source movement is far and away the most successful communist experiment in history.

crdoconnor 11y ago
Or a natural reaction to an overshoot of capitalist excess (trying to create scarcity out of a thing that fundamentally isn't scarce in order to profit).
tdylan 11y ago
How so?
amatic 11y ago
IP communism is not in conflict with belief in private property rights. The trick is in denying IP the status of property, because you cannot own ideas in the same sense you can own a car. Cars are fundamentaly scarce, two people can't use the same car at the same time. Ideas can be copied and improved upon, they don't go away when somebody steals them. Anyway, there would certainly be successfull business models in absence of software patents. Not saying 'we should abolish software patents', we are probably too invested in this model.
- pki 11y ago
  I thought in some places (France?) software patents were unenforceable/not legal/not a thing
  - gruez 11y ago
    correct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_European_Patent_Convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_Eur...
sanxiyn 11y ago
Means of production, right? I agree the resemblance is more than skin deep.
nickpsecurity 11y ago
I considered it briefly in the past but decided against that paper. The reason is that most projects have a few core contributors that maintain control of it and use copyright law to underpin their efforts. Many also have corporate sponsors, which is a different dynamic. Others were built with proprietary process and open-sourced later. Not the emergence of software from voluntary actions of many that I pictured back then. There could be a comparison to communism with the few that have a foundation, community-driven development, and maybe community voting on what happens with it. Closest to how people would picture it. So, which major FOSS projects are done like that?
mikekchar 11y ago
It doesn't annoy me, but I have to say that I think you are wrong ;-). My google-fu gave me the following definition for communism: "a theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs." I suppose there is some superficial resemblance, but I consider communism a means of doling out limited resources in an equitable fashion. So instead of having individual ownership, the community owns it and manages it based on need. Instead of being free to act in your own best interest, you are obliged to contribute to the level of your ability. With FLOSS, we are simply removing the concept that a piece of software is a limited resource. There is no group ownership -- individuals still own their copyright. It's just that under the rules of the licensing, ownership is irrelevant. For example, I no longer sign inventions agreements at work. Instead, I tell my employers that all outside work I do will be under the GPL (or AGPL). I will even assign copyright over to them as long as the code is licensed as GPL. They can own it. I don't care because it makes no difference who owns it. In a communist society, ownership is still quite important. It dictates who will decide what I need. If I owned the resource, I could take as much as I wanted (or give away or sell it if I wanted). With community ownership, the community decides. With FLOSS, if I have a copy of the software, it just doesn't matter who owns the copyright. I have the same rights and obligations either way. Another big difference is the reception of the item. In a communist society, I have a right to the things I need and an obligation to contribute to my ability. With FLOSS, nobody must give me anything. If they do happen to give something to me, then I can do what I want with it (up to the limit of impinging other people's freedoms in some cases). But I don't have to do anything. This is often a big misunderstanding the neophytes to free software have. They often demand bug fixes, or they demand to be given software for free. You just don't have that right, even if it is something you need. Similarly, if I make a change to any software, I needn't give that change to anyone. I am free to do so, but I have no obligation. In summation, I don't think this is communism at all. It is simply leveraging the fact that existing software is not a limited resource. It establishes a set of community rules that optimises the freedom of the members of the community, not the satisfaction of their needs. Importantly, it does not establish any rights or obligations. The last bit is tricky as you have obligations to offer source code if you choose to distribute, but the "if" part is important. Similarly, advocates feel that there is a moral imperative to act in a way that preserves software freedom for downstream users, but nobody says that those users have a "right" to the software (in the way that a person has a right to a food in communist society).
davidgay 11y ago
Well that isn't exactly a surprise for anyone who has read the "GNU Manifesto" (or even just seen it's title) - and yes, of course, the FSF is not the whole open source movement, etc, etc.

crdoconnor 11y ago

Or a natural reaction to an overshoot of capitalist excess (trying to create scarcity out of a thing that fundamentally isn't scarce in order to profit).

tdylan 11y ago

How so?

amatic 11y ago

IP communism is not in conflict with belief in private property rights. The trick is in denying IP the status of property, because you cannot own ideas in the same sense you can own a car. Cars are fundamentaly scarce, two people can't use the same car at the same time. Ideas can be copied and improved upon, they don't go away when somebody steals them. Anyway, there would certainly be successfull business models in absence of software patents. Not saying 'we should abolish software patents', we are probably too invested in this model.

pki 11y ago
I thought in some places (France?) software patents were unenforceable/not legal/not a thing
- gruez 11y ago
  correct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_European_Patent_Convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_Eur...

sanxiyn 11y ago

Means of production, right? I agree the resemblance is more than skin deep.

nickpsecurity 11y ago

I considered it briefly in the past but decided against that paper. The reason is that most projects have a few core contributors that maintain control of it and use copyright law to underpin their efforts. Many also have corporate sponsors, which is a different dynamic. Others were built with proprietary process and open-sourced later. Not the emergence of software from voluntary actions of many that I pictured back then. There could be a comparison to communism with the few that have a foundation, community-driven development, and maybe community voting on what happens with it. Closest to how people would picture it. So, which major FOSS projects are done like that?

mikekchar 11y ago

It doesn't annoy me, but I have to say that I think you are wrong ;-). My google-fu gave me the following definition for communism: "a theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs." I suppose there is some superficial resemblance, but I consider communism a means of doling out limited resources in an equitable fashion. So instead of having individual ownership, the community owns it and manages it based on need. Instead of being free to act in your own best interest, you are obliged to contribute to the level of your ability. With FLOSS, we are simply removing the concept that a piece of software is a limited resource. There is no group ownership -- individuals still own their copyright. It's just that under the rules of the licensing, ownership is irrelevant. For example, I no longer sign inventions agreements at work. Instead, I tell my employers that all outside work I do will be under the GPL (or AGPL). I will even assign copyright over to them as long as the code is licensed as GPL. They can own it. I don't care because it makes no difference who owns it. In a communist society, ownership is still quite important. It dictates who will decide what I need. If I owned the resource, I could take as much as I wanted (or give away or sell it if I wanted). With community ownership, the community decides. With FLOSS, if I have a copy of the software, it just doesn't matter who owns the copyright. I have the same rights and obligations either way. Another big difference is the reception of the item. In a communist society, I have a right to the things I need and an obligation to contribute to my ability. With FLOSS, nobody must give me anything. If they do happen to give something to me, then I can do what I want with it (up to the limit of impinging other people's freedoms in some cases). But I don't have to do anything. This is often a big misunderstanding the neophytes to free software have. They often demand bug fixes, or they demand to be given software for free. You just don't have that right, even if it is something you need. Similarly, if I make a change to any software, I needn't give that change to anyone. I am free to do so, but I have no obligation. In summation, I don't think this is communism at all. It is simply leveraging the fact that existing software is not a limited resource. It establishes a set of community rules that optimises the freedom of the members of the community, not the satisfaction of their needs. Importantly, it does not establish any rights or obligations. The last bit is tricky as you have obligations to offer source code if you choose to distribute, but the "if" part is important. Similarly, advocates feel that there is a moral imperative to act in a way that preserves software freedom for downstream users, but nobody says that those users have a "right" to the software (in the way that a person has a right to a food in communist society).

davidgay 11y ago

Well that isn't exactly a surprise for anyone who has read the "GNU Manifesto" (or even just seen it's title) - and yes, of course, the FSF is not the whole open source movement, etc, etc.