> So when I write that “open source has failed” I’m obviously not writing from a technology perspective, Well perhaps you could add a few words to the title so

> So when I write that “open source has failed” I’m obviously not writing from a technology perspective, Well perhaps you could add a few words to the title so that the title actually reflects what the article is about. The article is actually a critique of capitalism and intellectual properly law in the US disguised as a discussion about open source software. At the beginning of the article: > To say that open source contributed to the overall innovation of the world would be a shameful understatement. > Better would be to say that the world’s computing innovations owe their existence to the triumph of open source development > I don’t know how to calculate the total value of open source software to the world, but I do know that if open source software suddenly went away, the results would be catastrophic, an existential crisis for humanity. > One could claim, without any exaggeration, that our current world runs on open source software or that our modern world would not exist in its current form without open source software. Near the end of the article: > If the proliferation of open source software cannot begin to resolve our issues with concentration of wealth in the technology industry, and in fact exacerbates it, then what good is it? Sure, open source is literally responsible for the world's computer innovations, providing an incalculable value to the world but what good is it anyways if it doesn't seize the means of production and cast away the chains of the bourgeoisie? Terrible article.