3 ms·
Depends on one's definition of "capitalism" when applied to software I think. Whereas I would not "own" the software, I would own the hours I'm willing to writ
by craigsmansion 7y ago
Depends on one's definition of "capitalism" when applied to software I think.
Whereas I would not "own" the software, I would own the hours I'm willing to write software. As things are I can't freely sell those hours because of a monopoly on many programs, that is, no user can hire me to improve their proprietary software. I can only sell my hours to users of Free Software.
Now we have software "ownership" against the workings of a free market. Both of these are generally considered "capitalist", so it depends on your definition which is "more capitalist", but I hope it's clear that neither of them is strictly capitalist where the other is not.
- wvenable 7y agoYou make a very good point. At issue here is that the developer is not selling their time. They're putting in that time for free. And then they want to recover that income after the fact. This is traditionally how any kind of product is developed. You put in time and resources into a product and you sell that product to recoup that cost and hopefully make a profit as well. If you don't own/control the software, due to it being Free Software, then that whole avenue of income generation is not available or very difficult. Time and again, we see individuals and companies trying to find a way to sell Free Software like traditional software.