6 ms·

No, it's not. Developers of open-source software don't recieve any resources just because they are releasing software freely to the public. They recieve resourc

No, it's not. Developers of open-source software don't recieve any resources just because they are releasing software freely to the public. They recieve resources by standard means of donations, sponsorships, licensing, branding, support etc. If the state funded open-source development then perhaps it could be considered to be 'socialist'. But how can it be considered to be Marxist or Communist?

peter_d_sherman 6y ago
>"Developers of open-source software don't recieve any resources just because they are releasing software freely to the public." Not monetarily perhaps; that is true (Side note; here's there's one hell of a business opportunity if there isn't already some company trying to figure out how to monetize open source software , but that's a side discussion, a digression...) So you are correct -- but your correctness applies to a limited scope. To understand this, let's revisit your statement: >"Developers of open-source software don't recieve any resources just because they are releasing software freely to the public." Now, we agreed that monetarily this is true... But do me a favor, will you? Go up to any Open Source developer; any software developer who has contributed to an Open Source project -- and ask them one simple question: That question is: "Have you ever used Open Source Software that you didn't write, that you didn't create?" You see, I'll bet that 99.44% of them answer in the affirmative; that is, in a firm and resounding "Yes". So now, you're telling me that the free use of other people's open source software -- ISN'T a resource? (I don't know, but I think they have a saying in French "Permettez-moi de ne pas croire" ("permit me to disbelieve" <g>)) Have you ever heard of something called Linux? ? That's not "receiving a resource" ? ? In fact, even if you are not an Open Source Developer -- you are receiving the benefit of Hacker News -- which is running on Linux -- as are a huge amount of other people, myself included! Or, what about all of the other websites that people use that run on Linux? Surely that's "receiving a resource" ? Half of the damn Internet as we know it today -- is provided by Linux and other Open Source Software that forms the stack, that serves half of all websites in existence today... That's not a "receiving a resource" ? What about all of the free information that the Internet provides? That's not "receiving a resource" ? An intellectual one? As opposed to a monetary one? Socialism/Marxism/Communism (and I am not defending any of them, nor their implementations, nor all of the problems that they have caused in historical contexts) all derive from the simplest of all simple ideas, which might be expressed (to a Christian) as "Charity", but that were expressed by Marx as "From each according to ability, to each according to need". Yes, historically, implemented to the scale of governments, this has caused many wars, much bloodshed, countless millions of lives lost, etc., etc. But the central idea (although poorly implemented historically by governments) was that of sharing, helping others, etc., etc. If you truly cannot see this central idea present, then I cannot help you. But you post your very message on an Internet whose totality was half-created by this idea...
- peter_d_sherman 6y ago
  Oh, I should add a quick addendum here, which is that a huge amount of technological advancement of CPU's over the past 30 years (or so) was caused by the intense competition between Intel and AMD... That competition (and the corresponding technological advancement that it brought!) -- would not and could not exist under Communism! That intense competition -- requires Capitalism -- for it to exist! So, Capitalism -- is not without its benefits! Just to balance the arguments a little bit...<g>
thundergolfer 6y ago
To me open-source fits neatly into Graeber’s idea of “basic communism”. He notes that all people are basic communists, in the sense that if the need is great enough, and the cost of giving is small enough, all people recognise the correctness of communistic exchange. Software is incredibly cheap to copy, share, and distribute, and once you’ve built it to solve your problem it can equally serve as a solution to the problems of others. It’s non-exclusionary. There’s also the sense that open-source software is publicly owned, which is a key feature of socialist societies.

peter_d_sherman 6y ago

>"Developers of open-source software don't recieve any resources just because they are releasing software freely to the public." Not monetarily perhaps; that is true (Side note; here's there's one hell of a business opportunity if there isn't already some company trying to figure out how to monetize open source software , but that's a side discussion, a digression...) So you are correct -- but your correctness applies to a limited scope. To understand this, let's revisit your statement: >"Developers of open-source software don't recieve any resources just because they are releasing software freely to the public." Now, we agreed that monetarily this is true... But do me a favor, will you? Go up to any Open Source developer; any software developer who has contributed to an Open Source project -- and ask them one simple question: That question is: "Have you ever used Open Source Software that you didn't write, that you didn't create?" You see, I'll bet that 99.44% of them answer in the affirmative; that is, in a firm and resounding "Yes". So now, you're telling me that the free use of other people's open source software -- ISN'T a resource? (I don't know, but I think they have a saying in French "Permettez-moi de ne pas croire" ("permit me to disbelieve" <g>)) Have you ever heard of something called Linux? ? That's not "receiving a resource" ? ? In fact, even if you are not an Open Source Developer -- you are receiving the benefit of Hacker News -- which is running on Linux -- as are a huge amount of other people, myself included! Or, what about all of the other websites that people use that run on Linux? Surely that's "receiving a resource" ? Half of the damn Internet as we know it today -- is provided by Linux and other Open Source Software that forms the stack, that serves half of all websites in existence today... That's not a "receiving a resource" ? What about all of the free information that the Internet provides? That's not "receiving a resource" ? An intellectual one? As opposed to a monetary one? Socialism/Marxism/Communism (and I am not defending any of them, nor their implementations, nor all of the problems that they have caused in historical contexts) all derive from the simplest of all simple ideas, which might be expressed (to a Christian) as "Charity", but that were expressed by Marx as "From each according to ability, to each according to need". Yes, historically, implemented to the scale of governments, this has caused many wars, much bloodshed, countless millions of lives lost, etc., etc. But the central idea (although poorly implemented historically by governments) was that of sharing, helping others, etc., etc. If you truly cannot see this central idea present, then I cannot help you. But you post your very message on an Internet whose totality was half-created by this idea...

peter_d_sherman 6y ago
Oh, I should add a quick addendum here, which is that a huge amount of technological advancement of CPU's over the past 30 years (or so) was caused by the intense competition between Intel and AMD... That competition (and the corresponding technological advancement that it brought!) -- would not and could not exist under Communism! That intense competition -- requires Capitalism -- for it to exist! So, Capitalism -- is not without its benefits! Just to balance the arguments a little bit...<g>

thundergolfer 6y ago

To me open-source fits neatly into Graeber’s idea of “basic communism”. He notes that all people are basic communists, in the sense that if the need is great enough, and the cost of giving is small enough, all people recognise the correctness of communistic exchange. Software is incredibly cheap to copy, share, and distribute, and once you’ve built it to solve your problem it can equally serve as a solution to the problems of others. It’s non-exclusionary. There’s also the sense that open-source software is publicly owned, which is a key feature of socialist societies.