This is wavering off topic, but since it's an intersting topic and you asked, let's do it. Open source is inherently communistic because nobody owns anything.

This is wavering off topic, but since it's an intersting topic and you asked, let's do it. Open source is inherently communistic because nobody owns anything. You have control over your own project, but that's where it stops. You cannot force open source maintainers to do something. This is unlike capitalism; at a standard company, your NDA forces you not to disclose secrets. In open source, there are no secrets to disclose, short of drama and private infighting. A non-compete prevents you from forking the business you work for. These are unenforceable in Cali, but the rest of the US is not so lucky. You are bound to a paycheck that determines your fate. This is the essence of capitalism. Contrast that with open source: people don't merely contribute because they want to. It increases their reputation. Ditto for a review system on darknet markets. Both of these things are very unlike capitalism. So if not communism, then what? Not libertarianism. There's no ownership, and ownership is central to libertarian ideals.