Open source movement is actually communism, disprove me if you can

Uhh freetards try to...

concept of property cannot exist for non-scarce resources, so it doesn't compare. even if it existed, open source is voluntary, while communism isn't

Sincne capitalism and socialism are economic models, they only make sense when talking about scarce resources. Ideas, data that can be copied isn't scarce, making already the comparison bullshit.

Now the problem is, do you want developers to give you property of the software you but, or just keep it as a service and make you dependent of them? Don't be a cuck and support the choice that respects your dignity the most as a consumer.

These

since*
the software you buy*

Yes, but whenever someone wants to make use of their copyright (see the Linux devs wanting to pull their code over the CoC), then suddenly the code is "our code" and "your copyright doesn't matter". Your "copyright" is pretty worthless if that right isn't enforced by anyone and you lose your rights to pulling your code the second you speak up against other people.

all relevant open source software producers are giant corporations

Red-baiting.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red-baiting

Open source is just open source.

free software != open source. you're new here, right?

it's not because it's not compulsory

...

Communism is a form of national government. Open source software isn't a national government.

That's not how this works. The burden of proof is on you.

>disprove me if you can
That's not how it works.
COPE

You're making the claim, you have to prove your assertion.

Regardless, open source work is the voluntary labor of those who decide to contribute, and rights to the product of that labor are given away voluntarily, with no coercion. Given that many open source devs are not compensated, they must also have some way to feed themselves and/or their families, which typically means a day job or ample savings.

Voluntarily giving away your labor because you want to and having the prosperity and stored wealth to work for free and not die are features of a capitalist society, not a communist one. People in communist countries (read: collapsed economies) are scrounging for basic necessities and cannot afford to work for free, let alone build any kind of specialized skills.

Notice the common feature of all talented open-source devs with origins in communist countries: They left. THEN they became productive programmers.

Ai chan is cute cute!

We live in a timeline where two time Oscar winner Christoph Waltz wants to marry an anime girl.

Best timeline

Attached: 1506274972779.gif (500x219, 204K)

gas all 3dpd, even CG """women"""

>but whenever someone wants to make use of their copyright
Derivative work retains the original copyright, so it's not "their" copyright at all.

>see the Linux devs wanting to pull their code over the CoC
This is a Jow Forums meme and not something that has happened. Fuck off kid.

Information is not property. You can't own it. It makes no sense at all to apply private property laws to it. Calling open-source "communism" is complete nonsense.

>The open source movement was popularized by Karl Marx in 1848.
Every knows how Lenin contributed code to various repos, amirite?

You act like there's something wrong with having a community sharing ownership of software.

Attached: 1546903709235 (1).gif (230x230, 1.54M)

open source is another capitalist term to mask free software and its ideals

Except unlike government communism it works because it's opt in, and letting non-contributors benefit from it doesn't consume resources.

I want to nakadashi inside Miku

>copyright/capitalism

Attached: ..jpg (894x894, 308K)

>Sharing ownership
I don't think you understand, I give them source code and they improve it and give it back.

Executing communists on sight is a humanitarian mission for wellbeing of humanity everyone on the right side of the history acknowleges, but open-sorcerers are not executed in pogroms of social justice. Sorry but reality doesn't check out here pal.

BSD is communism
Everything is given away for free
It's a one way gift to fat lazy welfare recipients
GPL is capitalism
I agree to share my work if you agree to share yours
If you don't want to share your work, then pay me. I don't work for free.

open source doesn't try to appeal minorities
open source doesn't try to destroy itself
open source doesn't make recruitment quotas
open source doesn't starve their users
open source doesn't want to foment infighting between their users
open source doesn't lie (you can check its source code)

What about the new ToS being enforced.

Copyright law is not capitalist. A government arbitrarily restricting how one may use their own scarce resources and the voluntarily exchange of them is not capitalist.

The entirety of open source is funded by capitalist corporations.

So Ai chan won an Oscar or something?

and that's a good thing

or as I've begun calling it recently, copyright + capitalism.

What ToS?

Can these fucking normalfags stop appropriating my culture?

Attached: 1539098067243.jpg (499x501, 34K)

By embracing the principles of voluntarism, open source is actually an Objectivist movement.

Attached: 1550212023222.jpg (220x329, 11K)

>says the normalfag enjoying normalfag culture

>communism: the state owns all the means of production
well, no
>communism: you can´t sell shit
well, no, again

>government communism
>the state
Illiterate boomers OUT

>communism is what POOR people do and if you're engaging in mutual aid and you're not POOR then it's not communism

Attached: 1550069570609.png (1000x432, 165K)

>working together in a community and sharing with others is bad
Imagine being a socially disabled Jow Forums-kin.

Attached: 1550550859787.jpg (948x1199, 330K)

Concur with all of this, also that open source doesn't kill millions

Why? Communism is great if resources are unlimited.

>No centralized management.
>No forced redistribution of software.

>No forced participation
>No forced redistribution
>Concept of property for a non-scarce resource
Not communism

Attached: 1550964595430.png (308x164, 6K)

The price of using GPL'd software is your contribution.
The rest is legal fluff.
- Linus Torvalds

It's covered by U.S. patent law, you fucking idiot. You think U.S. fucking patent law is fucking communist? Grow a fucking brain you clueless brainlet.
- Me

Your work and your time is your capital.
You can sell it at any price you want.

Selling your time to FOSS can gain you many things in return, Money, contacts, tuning of the project to your liking, experience and knowledge!

Well a lot of Linux core development is corporate funded, alot isn't but that's just two of the reasons these corporations make insane profits off of freetard contributions, like top leaders in communist/everything else too. At least the smart people like Stallman and Linus make millions off of convincing idiots to work for free. It sounds more like part scam/cult/capitalism/etc. to me than communism.

Not sure about open source but redefinition of words "free software" definitely is sophism.

Because its a fantasy, a lie. Firefox for instance. Mozilla does whatever they want and your only choice is to not use firefox. The community has no input, no control, no voice, and no ownership.

mozilla license has restrictions, I guess. I've never read it.
Still, there's numerous forks.
Just none as good as firefox yet. imo.

The guys creating kernel code are probably getting paid by Microsoft Google Red Hat Novell etc.
The guys working for free in mom's basement are doing fluxbox themes and mplayer skins.

That's why it's good, idiot.

THIS

if ayn rand were alive today she would be a fan of FOSS

It's anarchism, brainlet.

Lets pretend for a moment we were not allowed to use free-of-charge software. 'open source' would actually end up stronger under such laws because then people who make Linux would get start getting paid for their work, and so would face stronger competition from Linux. So go ahead and outlaw free-cost software and see where it gets you.

>able to independently verify if the application is botnet or not
>millions of users voluntarily contribute out of passion for software and coding, not because of desperation from wage slavery
>no profit incentive means no incentive to spy, collect data and bombard you with ads
>decentralized with no formal corporate hierarchy, making infiltration by state actors or concessions to our tyrannical government impossible
>taking back ownership of software collectively, making licensefags and drmniggers seethe
>not contributing to the wealth of CEOs and shareholder parasites that provide no labor to the project

Open source proves decentralized anarcho-communism is the only sustainable and based system. Liberals, tankies and bootlickers should be shot.

God, this board is bluepilled af. Free software exists despite copyright law. It has to cope with copyright law because the jews provide no way out. They literally don't allow to publish software in public domain. Gas the jews.

Attached: bluepill.png (302x649, 55K)

ahem

They realized they can't compete, so they try to embrace.

Holy fuck, was about to make this thread yesterday

>Free software exists despite copyright law.
Wrong, faggot. Copyright is fundamental to free software, otherwise you couldn't prevent anyone from violating the four freedoms.

>A government arbitrarily restricting how one may use their own scarce resources
Copyright law does the exact opposite, it grants the creator control over how the work should be used.

Many giant corporations want to sell software.
But sometimes giant corporations just need to use software.
Turns out there's this gigantic library of software you are free to use, modify and redistribute. The only hitch is you make your contribution freely available.
Now there's a pretty good chance you might want to take advantage of that giant library of free software if you got to be a giant corporation by having good business sense.
I'm quite surprised by how many brainlets who frequent this board are unable to grasp that concept.

The concept that they embrace and extend what they can't compete with? That concept is understandable.