> Actually "open source", as we know it, can only exist in a capitalist framework. That's not true at all. For one, there are more alternatives to capitalism t

> Actually "open source", as we know it, can only exist in a capitalist framework. That's not true at all. For one, there are more alternatives to capitalism than anarchy. Second, there are more users of open soruce than governments. Third, even though open source projects do have licenses and we have a legal system that enforces intellectual property, we've had very few court cases related to open source licenses because it's largely unnecessary. There's really no one to sue or be sued in an economically viable fashion. There's been very few cases. And you are largely free to fork an open source project that's happenedd many times. > Also, I think we are far away from collectivism Collectivism doesn't necessitate that everyone produces value. > Finally, capitalist companies use open source software a lot. It is just a very efficient way of dealing with software This goes to my point that collectivism can be a net benefit. The profit motive would want to build an enclosure around something like Linux and we'd all be worse off for it, companies included. That's kind of the point.