GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
rshaw, i will be incredibly impressed if you can explain the logic you used to associate my question to cults.
I'll settle for just saying that this makes no sense. The various "isms" and "acies" are about government and economics, not technolgy development.
There is--I suppose--some connection. In pure socialism, you can imagine some bureacrat at least trying to bring Operating systems, the Internet, etc. under central control as--eg--a regulated publich utility.
One thing that was laughable was the statement attributed to Steve Ballmer that Linux was communist. Last I checked that meant central control---pretty much the antithesis of what Open-source is all about....
it made sense in my head at the time, but that ain't saying much.
it doesn't make a whole lot of sense unless you keep in mind the some in the "community" have a real problem with anything that is not 100% "free" . it is this zealotry that leads the casual user to equate linux == socialism. it's the same zealotry that attracts people that are prone to attach religious overtones to it."free is the 'one true' way" and wanting accelerated graphics on my nvidia card is some how a sin against the community.
(i want my stuff to work, and if i have to use ndiswrapper + a binary blob until a gpl'ed version is available, so be it)
Open-source is neither capitalist nor socialism, because if were socialism, it wouldn't be called "Free" software, last time I checked socialism is pretty much the opposite of freedom, and its not capitalist because linux is not used for profit
Well, the Linux kernel is copyrighted by Linus Torvalds and others, and released under the GPL v. 2 license. Most other programs which use the kernel are also copyrighted and released on various versions of the GPL.
Thus development of Linux kernels and programs depends, at a basic level, on a political system which honors copyrights and enforces the rights of copyright holders to specify, and enforce, the license they grant to use their work.
Many -- but not all -- governments implement the standard "International Copyright Convention." Those that do not recognize the standard set of copyright holders rights and obligations have been both "capitalist" and "socialist." (e.g., South Africa and China.) Thus the assumption of your question, that the way a society handles copyrights is related to its political label, seems, to me, to be false on it face.
Conclusion: Your poll is flawed by invalid assumptions.
Observation: Most countries that "recognize" copyrights have laws that allow the country to "ignore" the copyright holder's rights in the "national interest." That observation is not too pertinent to Linux systems, since the GPL (and most other FOSS) licenses permit non-commercial use of the licensed material, so use in the "national interest" where the object is, presumably, not to make a profit, would not present a problem for Linux.