Is FOSS a communist alternative to capitalist proprietary software?

I don't have time for that. I have to take other people's word for it, based on code audits

Free software as espoused by Stallman and the FSF is capitalist because it needs to be in order to survive since it was developed in a capitalist system. What it can do is be a launching point for a transition to a market socialist system like Mutualism and then further to a communist society where private property and licenses don't exist.

Open source in the way the OSI pushes is the corporatization of the Free Software movement. It was a way to make free software seem less scary to shareholders since it took out all the parts that were threatening to the current capitalist order in the Free Software movement. Now you got companies like Microsoft and Google being seen as leaders in the open source world, shoe on head retarded.

Yes and Yes. Anything that did not come out of Trumps smelly asshole is communist.

Both communism and capitalism are Jewish ideologies, so who cares about comparisons with them?

Attached: jew-42.jpg (1326x1578, 664K)

Stop using the terms "FOSS" and "Open Source" when referring to free software.

this, a million times.

I didn't mention Open Source a single time in my post. Also FOSS is the correct term, although FLOSS would probably be preferable to avoid any confusion around the English word "free".

No, free software is the correct term. "Open source" is just a marketing buzzword.

F in FOSS stands for free you brainlet.

They both mean free software, and your animosity against it is silly politics. FSF recommends using the term FLOSS, which I concede I should have instead of FOSS.

Yes, I am aware. The correct term is just "free software", however.

Anyway, I didn't say "open source", I said FOSS. It stands for free open source software.

That is a compromise. Just say free software. There is no need to use "open source" outside of IBM's boardroom.

Communist? Someone doesn't understand free software.

Open source is in "FOSS".

gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.html

>Thus, if you want to be neutral between free software and open source, and clear about them, the way to achieve that is to say “FLOSS,” not “FOSS.”

I didn't say "open source", I said FOSS which literally means free open source software. Don't impede my free speech, man.

There's a letter preceding open source in the acronym which literally stands for free.

But logically at least FOSS is correct. It is free (as freedom) and all free software must also be open source. Maybe free software is what Stallman wants to call it, but what's so horrible about FOSS if it's technically correct?

Now calling it simply "open source" is wrong, but FOSS should be ok.

Excuse me, but there's no FOSS software, there's only free software. So-called "FOSS" was invented as an attempt to subvert the free software movement in 1998.

Attached: download.jpg (1704x2272, 898K)

The FSF agrees that it is a compromise, as I stated.
Yes, but the open source part is unnecessary. Open source is but one aspect of free software.
Open source is marketing gubbons and should be ignored.

>Maybe free software is what Stallman wants to call it, but what's so horrible about FOSS if it's technically correct?
The fact that it lumps together free systems and "open source" systems that are usually non-free, thus undermining important distinctions of free software. It's a hostile attempt of big business companies to impose their vision on the free software world.

>Yes, but the open source part is unnecessary. Open source is but one aspect of free software.
That's incorrect.

All free software is open source, but not all open source is free software. Some of Microsoft's so-called "open source" licenses are non-free licenses.

You didn't read it correctly. Open source is part of free software, it is one of the four freedoms.

>All free software is open source, but not all open source is free software.
That's exactly the point, you are either on the free software side, or on the corporate side. From the free software side, all free software is also open-source and there's no need to mention open-source. From the corporate side, open-source is a good way to prevent users from going full free software mode, which would bring death to the corporate world.

>you are either on the free software side, or on the corporate side
No, fuck you Bush-Trump ("you're either with us or against us").

Corporates can use and contribute to free software too.

But a license need to grant the user all four freedoms to be free, which some open source licenses don't. Therefore, talking about free software and non-free open source software, FOSS is an accurate term.

No, you need to follow the preceding conversation.

I am the guy you are replying to, fuckface. Stop being a condecending faggot and actually read my posts, instead of basing your argument on a fucking strawman and pretending I said something I didn't.

I'm fucking done. Fuck you. You ruined this thread.

Maybe get back to ESL, nigger.

>OS
Freedom
>FOSS
Communism masquerading as "freedom"

>You're free to see and use the code, but you can't build something new off of it and sell that because I decided that it's illegal to sell it unless you also make open source your additions and allow people to redistribute it for free :^)

FOSS is an attempt at a libertarian alternative to authoritarian copyright law

Hi, Apple.

Corporates only care about free software inasmuch as they could influence it, control it, stifle it, and kill it. That's exactly why the term Open Source was made.

>>OS
>Freedom
>>FOSS
>Communism masquerading as "freedom"
OSI shill finally enters the thread. Done sucking M$ dick?

capitalism and communism are not opposites, simce the aim of both is to abolish all private property except that which is concentrated in the hands of the neofeudal elite.

the opposite of both is freedom.

and stallman is a jew.
kys anti semitist

Attached: Russia_-_putin_and_rabbis.jpg (800x472, 340K)

russia sucks so do our tiknoladgis

What the fuck is an ESL?

Nope. There is no collective ownership under FOSS, more of an anarchic one with no ownership at all. A FOSS project acts less like an object and more like a repository of code that can be used at whim.
It still plays in the game of capitalism. It may be competition to large companies, but so too are cooperative press organisations. That doesn't mean they're against capitalism.
You will never escape the glory of capitalism.

Attached: CAPITALISM_HO.jpg (482x495, 48K)

More than once

Attached: 1533991481551.png (112x112, 16K)

kill yourself, frogposter

>Have you ever scrolled through all the code on an open-source program before installing it?
Of course not, stupid. But I have patched multiple programs in order to add functionality that only I need, or fix bugs without having to wait for upstream to fix them. That's a pretty nice capability to have.