Redpill me on "Linux is Communism"

Redpill me on "Linux is Communism".
Who came up with this crap and why do people believe it?

Attached: 1528880450190.png (400x400, 83K)

Other urls found in this thread:

theregister.co.uk/2000/07/31/ms_ballmer_linux_is_communism/
wiki.mises.org/wiki/Intellectual_property
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>Who came up with this crap
You know (((who))).

>Who came up with this crap and why do people believe it?
They want to believe it, that's all. By their definition, cookbooks are communism, the weather report is communism, anything that shares information for free is communism.

Microsoft hating on the GPL and Steve Ballmer compared it to comunism, but he referred to the GPL as "Linux“ and that stuck.

Linux isn't communism, "free software" is communism

Capitalist Jews.

You need to go back

One of the biggest deus vult larping right wing conspiracy nuts I've ever met was a total Linuxist militant so I find that hard to believe.

theregister.co.uk/2000/07/31/ms_ballmer_linux_is_communism/

Is he a fascist or a libertarian? I use Linux and if it's communism so much the better for communism, but I wonder how "at least it's not the government" fags feel

Actually just hard conservative so neither. Not too unlike doomsaying Evangelicals, except he's Catholic.

Wild. Never met one of those.

>Who came up with this crap and why do people believe it?
Most likely corporations, to try to steer people away from free software.
Americans believe it because they have been so fucked that they believe anything that advocates against ruthless corporate exploitation is communism.

It is a funny meme because with communism, they believe the means of production should be in the hand of the people (the state) instead of the evil money hungry private business owners.

With free software (often conflated with linux just to piss stallman off), they think the software should be owned by the users, not let users be controlled by the evil private companies.

It is brilliant because it needs you to accept a few things such as copying is theft and that suppression of users rights is necessary to drive a business these days.

How so?

communism bad
linux communism
linux bad

no private ownership

But I privately own the ones and zeroes in my hard drive which are forming the copy of said free software.

no private ownership of intellectual property

Intellectual property is retarded and uncapitalistic tbqh.

only retards believe this shit

now ask yourself, are you a retard?

Umm... Free as in freedom, not as in beer dear.

how is intellectual property not capitalistic?

t. Capitalist jew

beer?

because it's government intervention in the economy

Because it violates my private ownership of the ones and zeroes which I physically own. I can set them in any configuration I want thank you very much, intellectual "property" violates real tangible private property.

if you were to give everybody that uses your software the utmost freedom you would licence it under a public domain licence, however this would not ensure that the software remains free - a company could take that public domain licenced driver and repackage it as a proprietary driver and using existing intellectual property sue people who try to reverse engineer/modify/redistribute that modified and proprietary driver, users could use the original copy you released to the public however if your intent was to release something that everybody could use in perpetuity you simply don't get that with public domain
the gpl tries to rectify this situation by creating a licence that would emulate what would happen if intellectual property laws didn't exist just like how they haven't always existed, you are given four essential freedoms (the freedom to run programs as you wish, to view/modify them, to redistribute them, and to redistribute modified copies) and as long as you follow some basic rules, namely that you cannot restrict others from these same freedoms, you can keep those freedoms in perpetuity
if you were to look at the gpl at a surface level it would seem like software communism, 'share and share alike' is a phrase thrown about by stallman and the fsf a lot, but if you were to look at the goals of the project and how the licence is implemented you'll instead see that the gpl has always taken a fairly libertarian stance and that there's nothing preventing the gpl from working even in the most anarchocapitalist societies - it's a contract that's open to private arbitration, an example that would support this is that stallman/linus aren't against big companies using gpl licenced software in their products and the only cases of arbitration has been to get companies in violation of the licence to get in line with the licence and release their modifications

(cont.)
I don't know who came up with 'gpl is communism' but the people who use it are almost certainly using it to spread fud, bsd type folks are pretty butthurt that the linux kernel can use bsd licenced software where bsd developers can't use gpl licenced software but the ideology of prominent bsd folk aligns pretty well with those of the fsf/gpl supporters at least with regards to intellectual property, there's an idea floating around that bsd/mit is the true libertarian licence and therefore gpl has to be communist but this is just a meme, public domain/bsd/mit/etc licences would be preferable to a gpl licence in a society without intellectual property laws but contract law and private arbitration are the foundations of such societies and the gpl isn't inherently against this
I think people believe it because it's effective fud and releasing your software as public domain/mit/bsd as opposed to gpl benefits those people who spread fud

know a 'deus vult' type white nationalist guy too and he's fine with the gpl but I wouldn't describe him as a zealot, it's only really private ownership including intellectual property right wingers that are against things like the gpl, think ayn rand on the libertarian side

most libertarians are against the idea that intellectual property is private property and they're definitely not communist

If free software is communism, how do Red Hat or Canonical prosper in capitalist societies?

thats what private property is about, other people lose their rights to something because you have rights to it

that's not what captialism means, a government upholds property rights in a captialist economy

>most libertarians are against the idea that intellectual property is private property
according to who, you?

>cookbooks and television are free
what did he mean by this

according to mises and many other prominent libertarians
it's only a handful of retarded american libertarians like ayn rand who consider intellectual property to be private property

>other people lose their rights to something
Not to their own private property.

wiki.mises.org/wiki/Intellectual_property

>a government upholds property rights in a captialist economy
IP isn't private property though.

now you're begging the question
when white people came to america, the natives had no concept of 'land ownership', but the colonists certainly did and they decided land could now be owned by people, and now the indians had lost their rights to use the land like they did in the past, you may consider that immoral but you'd be an idiot not to call it capitalism