5 ms·

The logical endpoint (regarding purity) of free software is communism, so you’re right that it doesn’t make sense to pursue it 100% in the context of for-profit

The logical endpoint (regarding purity) of free software is communism, so you’re right that it doesn’t make sense to pursue it 100% in the context of for-profit (presumably) companies.

dnautics 6y ago
Depends on the model. Probably the less restrictive models lean towards proudhon/tucker style anarchism more than marxism.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
zapzupnz 6y ago
Even when the means of production are in the hands of the workers, that presumably doesn't necessarily equate to accepting the workers tinkering all day, getting nothing done.
- Privacy846 6y ago
  I don’t know what this means.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    What they are saying is that in a hypothetical communist/socialist society, even if the entirety of production is organized by workers, it doesn't mean that they aren't going to be productive in actually building stuff, nor that they aren't going to get stuff done. How that relates to your argument I don't exactly know, but I guess it could be interpreted as saying that even if you admit that philosophy doesn't mean that you can't produce ""profit"" - especially if it is limited to software. Also, in theory, you could be 100% accept communist philosophy yet operate a for profit business.
- yellowapple 6y ago
  It does, however, typically necessitate the workers actually owning those means of production, which in the case of software typically entails either in-house development or the use of free software. The notion of any worker "owning" non-free software is illusory, at best.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    Indeed. Writ large, socialism isn't compatible with intellectual property, which I guess is part of the reason why early tech culture (and also nowadays but less so) has so many libertarian socialists.
    - ineedasername 6y ago
      and also nowadays but less so) has so many libertarian socialists Maybe it's the HN bubble, but tech culture these days seems to have a strong element of anarcho-capitalism, taking the usual minarchism of libertarian thought just a small step further.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        Anarcho-capitalism and the general right-libertarian tendencies in tech culture are virulently opposed to libertarian socialism, though. That said, I agree with your appraisal.
      - yellowapple 6y ago
        The HN bubble definitely has a lot to do with that, since the startup culture tends to hold capitalism on a pedestal.
abdullahkhalids 6y ago
The free software movement is not opposed to you writing software in-house, software which you do not ever distribute to anyone, and hence, are not required to distribute the source of that software to anyone. Hence, never-distributed closed-source software can be privately owned to generate economic profit. The freedoms the free software movement tries to realize are not comparable to what you are saying. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  I definitely agree about your point and disagree that the logical conclusion of FOSS is communism, whatever even that means, but I think there is something to be said about the connection between radical leftism (anarchism, socialism, communism, etc...) and free software. A way of understanding free software, IMO, is that working with software for which freedoms are socially limited (so-called proprietary software) towards someone else, the proprietor, robs the user of the software of freedom and creates some kind of social hierarchy that is undesirable. Meanwhile, the basic idea of radical leftism is that working using capital for which freedoms are socially limited to the benefit of someone else robs the worker (really, if you think about it, user-of-capital) of freedom and creates an undesirable social hierarchy. I think that there is some kind of parallel between both, and it's pretty interesting. That isn't to say that companies should use free software or develop free software from their self-interested point of view - as a company using free software you're almost in the same case as a worker, and as a company developing software it can align incentives to lead to better outcomes.
  - soco 6y ago
    Mostly off-topic :) but socialism cannot be "radical leftism" - because you're left like that without any "non-radical leftism" options. Is it left? Sure. But I'd use the labels "radical" for anarchism or marxism.
    - Privacy846 6y ago
      /delted/
ineedasername 6y ago
communism I don't think that term applies at all in this context. Somewhat simplistically, Communism is 1) A viewpoint on the historical development of society, most notably the economy 2) An extrapolation from that viewpoint on where things are headed, which is judged by communists to be a bad path 3) Advocacy for a path that diverges from #2. There's a dozen different major branches/interpretations, but at heart they are all socio-political/economic philosophies that are far more complex than simply who owns a thing. About the only parallel I see between free software is that both want property to be owned by the community. Though even then, I'm not sure free software would have even the restrictions that might be imposed by community ownership. (The community might say "no, don't build that thing." etc.) Perhaps in a purely communist society software would be free, but free software itself is not inherently communist.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

The logical endpoint (regarding purity) of free software is communism, so you’re right that it doesn’t make sense to pursue it 100% in the context of for-profit (presumably) companies.

dnautics 6y ago

Depends on the model. Probably the less restrictive models lean towards proudhon/tucker style anarchism more than marxism.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

zapzupnz 6y ago

Even when the means of production are in the hands of the workers, that presumably doesn't necessarily equate to accepting the workers tinkering all day, getting nothing done.

Privacy846 6y ago
I don’t know what this means.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  What they are saying is that in a hypothetical communist/socialist society, even if the entirety of production is organized by workers, it doesn't mean that they aren't going to be productive in actually building stuff, nor that they aren't going to get stuff done. How that relates to your argument I don't exactly know, but I guess it could be interpreted as saying that even if you admit that philosophy doesn't mean that you can't produce ""profit"" - especially if it is limited to software. Also, in theory, you could be 100% accept communist philosophy yet operate a for profit business.
yellowapple 6y ago
It does, however, typically necessitate the workers actually owning those means of production, which in the case of software typically entails either in-house development or the use of free software. The notion of any worker "owning" non-free software is illusory, at best.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Indeed. Writ large, socialism isn't compatible with intellectual property, which I guess is part of the reason why early tech culture (and also nowadays but less so) has so many libertarian socialists.
  - ineedasername 6y ago
    and also nowadays but less so) has so many libertarian socialists Maybe it's the HN bubble, but tech culture these days seems to have a strong element of anarcho-capitalism, taking the usual minarchism of libertarian thought just a small step further.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      Anarcho-capitalism and the general right-libertarian tendencies in tech culture are virulently opposed to libertarian socialism, though. That said, I agree with your appraisal.
    - yellowapple 6y ago
      The HN bubble definitely has a lot to do with that, since the startup culture tends to hold capitalism on a pedestal.

abdullahkhalids 6y ago

The free software movement is not opposed to you writing software in-house, software which you do not ever distribute to anyone, and hence, are not required to distribute the source of that software to anyone. Hence, never-distributed closed-source software can be privately owned to generate economic profit. The freedoms the free software movement tries to realize are not comparable to what you are saying. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

sudosysgen 6y ago
I definitely agree about your point and disagree that the logical conclusion of FOSS is communism, whatever even that means, but I think there is something to be said about the connection between radical leftism (anarchism, socialism, communism, etc...) and free software. A way of understanding free software, IMO, is that working with software for which freedoms are socially limited (so-called proprietary software) towards someone else, the proprietor, robs the user of the software of freedom and creates some kind of social hierarchy that is undesirable. Meanwhile, the basic idea of radical leftism is that working using capital for which freedoms are socially limited to the benefit of someone else robs the worker (really, if you think about it, user-of-capital) of freedom and creates an undesirable social hierarchy. I think that there is some kind of parallel between both, and it's pretty interesting. That isn't to say that companies should use free software or develop free software from their self-interested point of view - as a company using free software you're almost in the same case as a worker, and as a company developing software it can align incentives to lead to better outcomes.
- soco 6y ago
  Mostly off-topic :) but socialism cannot be "radical leftism" - because you're left like that without any "non-radical leftism" options. Is it left? Sure. But I'd use the labels "radical" for anarchism or marxism.
  - Privacy846 6y ago
    /delted/

ineedasername 6y ago

communism I don't think that term applies at all in this context. Somewhat simplistically, Communism is 1) A viewpoint on the historical development of society, most notably the economy 2) An extrapolation from that viewpoint on where things are headed, which is judged by communists to be a bad path 3) Advocacy for a path that diverges from #2. There's a dozen different major branches/interpretations, but at heart they are all socio-political/economic philosophies that are far more complex than simply who owns a thing. About the only parallel I see between free software is that both want property to be owned by the community. Though even then, I'm not sure free software would have even the restrictions that might be imposed by community ownership. (The community might say "no, don't build that thing." etc.) Perhaps in a purely communist society software would be free, but free software itself is not inherently communist.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]