diapsy.com
Aside from the core message about how putting the burden of FOSS on individualism is dumb ( Which I agree with, telling people they are slaves cause they use spotify wont help anyone start making/using FOSS') He's basically saying that FOSS is Marxist/Socialist, which I think is pretty true. We have alot of Right Libs/Ancaps on Sup Forums though that promote FOSS, how does one reconcile FOSS and those ideologies?
Other urls found in this thread:
mises.org
twitter.com
> He's basically saying that FOSS is Marxist/Socialist
> We have alot of Right Libs/Ancaps on Sup Forums though that promote FOSS
> how does one reconcile FOSS and those ideologies?
I think the key is kinda, universalizing the struggle for freedom. It crosses political boundaries, so it's easy to forget that a free society requires being free from the forces that bind us-- not just software, but many things
So you think people don't realize that having free software is one of many ways to free ourselves from those who would bind us? Isn't that pretty much a Marxist ideal then. To liberate ourselves from the ruling class? I guess Right Libs/Ancaps don't realize that. Or perhaps they do realize it but it feels like a separate issue somehow.
FOSS isn't marxist or socialist or anarchist or libertarian at all, it's pure constitutional liberty.
It's the enforcement of freedom.
Because once the laws come off, the slavery starts.
Remember that slavery had to be banned, and that ban had to be enforced. There are places in the world where the slavery ban is not enforced. Those places are not nice.
Freedom is not a natural state of affairs, it takes effort to maintain it.
DEATH TO THE INFIDELS!
>FOSS isn't marxist or socialist or anarchist or libertarian at all, it's pure constitutional liberty.
This isn't true. Free Software in a lot of ways restricts individual liberties one can do with their source code ( like making it proprietary)
Also the natural state is not slavery, that was just another form of oppression by the ruling class. That's not anymore "natural" than the freedom we have today in "first world" countries.
>BAWWW WAAHHH WHAT ABOUT MY FREEDOM TO ENSLAVE OTHERS
I don't think its a good freedom to have, but that doesn't mean that Free Software does not RESTRICT that freedom.
I think you need to research what marxism and socialism is.
Permissive licenses like MIT or BSD are still FOSS you retarded shills.
Yes? I never said it didn't. Enforcing freedoms doesn't mean enforcing ALL freedom. That's anarchy.
You have to force people to stop enslaving others and you have to force people to stop releasing proprietary software.
Nice argument.
So basically that further proves the point that FOSS is not marxist/socialist.
There's nothing to argue about, you're just wrong. If OP can't make an argument, why should I.
Doesn't throwing terms like "marxist" or "socialist" around just muddle up the discussion even more for absolutely no reason?
The core of the guy's argument is purely a practical concern, on how the approach used in disseminating the ideals of free software can be counter productive and make people less instead of more receptive towards it.
>Yes? I never said it didn't. Enforcing freedoms doesn't mean enforcing ALL freedom.
What you did was just make a strawman so I didn't know how to reply to it, rather than just reaffirming my position on where I stood on that.
>You have to force people to stop enslaving others and you have to force people to stop releasing proprietary software.
This is for sure Marxist/Socialist.. Take away the power of those who would want to enslave you and making their property ( proprietary software) be giving it to the commons (forcing people to stop releasing proprietary sofware, ie. make FOSS).
Nice government
OP here. I didn't make an argument. I just asked a question.
>any form of anything but "fuck poor people xD" is socialist
You're a special type of retard. By your logic, Ron Paul is a communist.
>be giving it to the commons
Giving it? You can sell free software.
You fundamentally misunderstand what free software is.
Its a practical concern for the spread of a political ideology though ( free software) .
not that user, but the part that makes it socialist is the part where the commons is the answer to the power imbalance
OP is using an interesting spin on Microsoft's old Embrace Extend Extinguish strategy to shill his garbage failed political system.
Embrace
>See guys, what you believe is communism! We agree!
Extend
>So you should support government control of XYZ!
Extinguish
>Once you've converted enough of the population, use standard hivemind tactics to drown out the original libertarian viewpoint
There's nothing inherently incompatible with capitalism about the commons. Nothing is being "seized", goods are being freely exchanged in the total absence of scarcity.
Yeah, but trying to label it under preexisting systems tends to just devolve any discussion into a us versus them.
Free (as in libre, not beer) software has practical and profitable implications. As an ancap, I am able to see that in almost all scenarios, there is more money to be made in providing the source of your software than not. Also, copyright is anti-freemarket.
> copyright is anti-freemarket
how?
Intellectual property is not legitimate property. It requires that an organization (the governnent) uses/initiates force to stop you from using a product, in certain ways, for which you have voluntarily exchanged for. Contracts can be written up to prevent certain uses of software, but copyright itself is illogical, immoral, and lowers profit potential in an otherwise free market.
I don't think anyone thinks a commons is incompatible with capitalism, and socialism doesn't require siezing anything either.
it's just the idea that the factories and software and other means of production are owned by workers or part of a commons
the "sieze the means of production" meme isn't actually a requirement for something to be socialist in nature
I understand free software does not mean software gratis. By giving it to the commons, I mean this:
The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The reason proprietary software is called enslavement by FOSS evangelists is because it does not let you do this.
Socialism does not mean the government is in control of whatever.
I get it, but I'm also trying to understand how ancaps and right libs view FOSS and how it meshes with their ideology.
The GPL and GNU is fucking trash. It's commie marxist bullshit and anyone that calls it "free software" is a fucking idiot. Actual free software, with MIT licensed software being only one example of the dozens of free licenses, are not anti-capitalist.
So you agree the "Stallmanism" is Marxist/Socialist then?
no one is talking about putting the government in control of anything.
a commons is a means to protect people from risky forces of power-- putting a govt in charge of software would just be swapping some risky forces for another
>lowers profit potential in an otherwise free market
That sounds like an interesting argument, I'd like to know more.
>it's supposed to be about freedom
>it's tenets involve erasing the freedom of people to make software for a living
You realize that those 4 freedoms apply to all FOSS licenses and not just copy left?
mises.org
Yes. Not free software itself, but GNU/GPL ideology is because GNU/GPL is not free software.
Free software is about protecting people who use software from people who make it.
even those of us who make software also have to use it. it's critical that we build software that can't be used against us
I think people who use software should protect themselves, and those who choose to make non-free software should not be reviled as evil by default
our options for protecting ourselves are pretty limited. we either don't use software we think is bad or we use alternatives if the alternatives exist, which they usually don't.
BUT, as programmers, we are also users of software. we can protect ourselves and each other by using copyleft software and other such means to prevent our software from being used against us by more powerful organizations.
whatever your position on capitalism, if you already agree that non-Free software is dangerous, you agree that we need to mount a defense against it. we should do that not half-heartedly and individually, but with coordinated effort, and that's what copyleft is
>erasing the freedom of people to make software for a living
No it doesn't
yes it does
It's not contradictory for an Ancap to support FOSS just as it's no contradiction for Ancaps to support workers' cooperatives. Liberty means the right of the individual to have choice.
Free software is not marxist, in fact it doesn't even go into the issues of class, owning means of production etc.
What's more, free software insists that the person buying the software has complete control of it, and total freedom in it's use which is quite different from marxist/socialst views.
Come to think of it it's proprietary software which is "more communist" scheme of the two
this
I don't really agree with your reasonings, but free software (unless it's gnu/gpl """free software""") isn't marxist.
> Come to think of it it's proprietary software which is "more communist" scheme of the two
communism is literally just "the means of production are part of the commons", and Free software is centered on a commons
proprietary software being "more communist" is fundamentally incompatible with what communism even is
>Marxist/Socialist
Does free software install a dictatorship that is bound to get corrupted, which uses terror and brutal oppression and ruins your economy?
Free knowledge, free source.
This looks like Apple in Jobs Age.
I agree that It's sort of an absurd argument, but here it goes:
In a communist society, everything including your software is owned by the commune. The commune can decide to not allow you share the software or to inspect it's source code. Just how I'm not obliged to show you the source code for the software I use on my computer. So you see since the owner is not you, you don't have the four freedoms.
From the software users point of view, it's completely irrelevant whether some software company or the commune controls the software. That's why it seems to me that proprietary software is more communist since it both results in the same situation
> The commune can decide to not allow you share the software or to inspect it's source code
no, it can't. being part of the commons means no one is in control of it, not that the group gets democratic control over it.
the software commons created by GPL is available to everyone under the terms of the license *forever*. even the original author doesn't get to change the terms. it's the same with communism
I give you credit for admitting it's a bit of an absurd example, but it's pretty clear you have lots of baggage around communism (like most people do, and like I once did).
it's really not so complex and scary. the only scary thing might be if you view the commons as being a kind of theft of your labor, but that's a complex topic that doesn't apply to software since our contributions to the commons are voluntary and part of protecting ourselves and others from the powers that be
GLORY TO THE GNUSSR