FOSS Software - Communist?

[pusher robot]

Microsoft has described the Free and Open-Source software movement (specifically the GPL) to be "communist" or promoting a type of "communism" in the software industry. Members of the FOSS community have usually denied this, saying that the software industry has some unique characteristics that make it worthwhile to voluntarily donate time that do not apply to other markets, and that in reality the FSF has no problem with selling FOSS software and support.

What do you think? Is FOSS software a type of communism? If so, why don't more of you use it as an example of communism that has worked? And what conclusions might be drawn from it?

[Tungsten]

It's easy to draw parallels between open source software communism, just as it's easy to draw one between a family and communism. I wouldn't argue that all family units are communist, though. Open source software would only be communist if non-open source software was banned.

[IcarusAngel]

While Richard Stallman has described himself and the AI lab at MIT as being "left wing," and he clearly holds leftist viewpoints, the GPL itself operates _within_ existing copyright law, not against it, and the "GNU philosophy" goes out of its way to say that it is kind of "Free Enterprise."

Their argument against (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html) modern copyrights is that they are outdated for the computer industry (we have seen how that kind capitalism has held back progress in CS in many areas) since they give too much power to the corporations, and that free-software will restore not only better competition but be a better business model altogether (may or not be true).

The statement "software should not have owners" can be taken as being communist. At the same time, the GPL likens itself (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/gpl-american-way.html) to the founding period of America which to them is "freedom, community, and voluntary cooperation" (this was written by Stallman). They also have an interesting quote from Lincoln which says: "Whenever there is a conflict between human rights and property rights, human rights must prevail."

I thus believe that the GPL is like modern American liberalism, perhaps being at the extreme "left-wing" end of that. They believe in regulated capitalism (they'd support the breaking up of MS, etc.), believe that's what the founders of America would have wanted, and don't expect their views on "ownership" to only be applied to software itself, not to everything. I think Stallman is a bit too tame in regards to the philosophy of GNU, and at the same time the GNU philosophy covers a bit too wide an area. Nonetheless, that's what you pretty much end up with.

My personal opinion of GNU/Linux is that it's great and I use it all the time, especially for coding. But I'm not a GPL fanatic, and I actually feel quite comfortable using windows as well.

[apathy maybe]

I am a believer in free software, and have been since introduced to it by a IT teacher in high school (wow, that is a while back). This is before I identified with the revolutionary/radical left.

I think that many of the ideals put forward in the GNU philosophy section are compatible with left-wing thought. However, they are also to a large extent compatible with a anti-monopolistic small government capitalist ideology.

The philosophy of sharing is the big part of the free software movement that is similar to leftism.

Anyway, there have been a few threads on this in the past,
* Cuban government uses GNU/Linux
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=35517
* Stallman and Free Software
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=58207
* A crappy article I wrote on Free Software
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=25528

But you OIers can't respond to them, so sucks to be you :P

[The Sloth]

strange.. the mere addition "a kind of" communism betrays the lack of confidence in describing software in such political terms.

i wouldn't call it communist; it's simply a matter of use and distribution, and like tungsten said, it's all too easy to apply political words to things like family, etc. even our day-to-day social arrangements and situations may be described in as "communist" -- sharing a sandwich, or giving your brother your socks.

a little dumb, really.

[Janus]

The development and distribution of open source technology is an example on how technological efforts would be made in a communist society but applying political terms to such processes is really misleading and unnecessary as others have said.

[IcarusAngel]

Originally posted by The Sloth+April 03, 2007 04:54 pm--> (The Sloth @ April 03, 2007 04:54 pm)strange.. the mere addition "a kind of" communism betrays the lack of confidence in describing software in such political terms. [/b]


apathy [email protected] 03, 2007 04:41 pm
I think that many of the ideals put forward in the GNU philosophy section are compatible with left-wing thought. However, they are also to a large extent compatible with a anti-monopolistic small government capitalist ideology.


I think that's pretty much it. And I don't think Stallman would ever say "it's capitalist ideology" or "it's communist ideology" -- he's just interested in getting the ideas of free-software itself out there.

It's more about the interpretations of ideology itself rather than trying to fit the GPL into this or that philosophy: for example, some Libertarian Party members are openly anti-trust laws (it's in the Libertarian platform), and are totally "free-market" in the sense that you have to accept the outcome of the market. So those "small government" LPers would obviously oppose GNU, where as the anti-capitalists I sometimes debate with openly support it. And that goes for liberalism, communism, etc. as well, different interpretations of those ideologies fit into the GPL. So in the end it's really kind of pointless.

One thing the GNU philosophy is clear on though is that Open Source is not the same thing (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html) as Free-Software.

For those interested, here's a speech he gave at NYU:

URETSKY: I'm Mike Uretsky. I'm over at the Stern School of Business. I'm
also one of the Co-Directors of the Center for Advanced Technology. And,
on behalf of all of us in the Computer Science Department, I want to
welcome you here. I want to say a few comments, before I turn it over to
Ed, who is going to introduce the speaker.

The role of a university is a place to foster debate and to have
interesting discussions. And the role of a major university is to have
particularly interesting discussions. And this particular presentation,
this seminar falls right into that mold. I find the discussion of open
source particularly interesting. In a sense ... [Laughter]

STALLMAN: I do free software. Open source is a different movement.
[Laughter] [Applause]



Continued here (http://www.gnu.org/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt)

[RedCommieBear]

I've noticed pretty much everyone semi-literate in computers are supporters of the open-source movement because it just plain works better. Apolitical techies see open sources' enhanced security and ability to adapt quickly.

[Zero]

If a piece of software is created by a community of people who love creating software then it is going to turn out amazing. If it is created by a group of people who are being paid to do something in cubicles, you can bet your ass nothing worthwhile will be created.