After a few beers I found myself pondering a interesting question that might interest other hacks/developers in the area.

In the area of 'Open Source' where does it fall into politics? Where does MSFckT lay?

I talked to a few 0's and 1's around me and I swayed them to think that 'Open Source' is actually a democracy and MSFckT is some type of dictatorship?

What do you guys think?

I think trickykid is going to have this thread moved to General pretty soon. I'll come back to this post in earnest later maybe, but I've got class now.

Well, in essence, MSFckT is (in my mind) more of a democracy than open source. While I enjoy open source, it seems to me that OS programs are more 'communistic' in the sense that everyone contributes. It is the community who creates and upkeeps these programs. Not only that, but they are avaliable for all to download.

MSFckT, on the other hand, while it may be a pain in the ass, seems more democratic, in the sense that the US doesn't create any businesses. This is a bit unclear, but I will elaborate. In canada, the government is allowed to start businesses and compete with provate businesses. In America, it's private businesses only. That means the government (or in the case of this anology, the people), leave it up to industry to create/maintain software. Because it's all private businesses (like democracy advocates), they have to sell software for money in order to earn an upkeep.

I'm actually pretty curious as to how your idea works. Please elaborate a bit more so that we can thuroughly compare thoughts. THanks
~Brian

what is "open source" software? it's software OF the people, BY the people, and FOR the people. what is closed source/MS software? it's software OF the corporations, BY the corporations, and FOR the corporations (or, for the people in service of the corporations). for example, you can only do certain, corporate-sanctioned things with closed software, as governed by the EULA and other restrictions. with OSS, you are truly FREE to do whatever you want with it, limited only by your imagination, skill, and inherent limits of the technology.

what are our guaranteed, so-called inalienable, rights within our democracy? Life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness (not necessarily to be equated with the pursuit of capital).

Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: lib·er·ty
Pronunciation: 'li-b&r-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French liberté, from Latin libertat-, libertas, from liber free -- more at LIBERAL
1: the quality or state of being free: a: the power to do as one pleases b: freedom from physical restraint c: freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e: the power of choice

what better definition of open source software can there be than that? as we can see, the principles of open source are guaranteed in the very Constitution of our democracy (speaking of the US). therefore, OSS is truly democratic, while the same cannot definitely be said for MS/closed-source software.

I started thinking it was communist but my russian friends said no-way from their background and then I fell into where it is truely a democracy because of some of the reasoning that synaptical posted.

If it is controlled soley by the people and not created by a higher tier to be fed to the people(as in MSFckT) then it really is democracy as oppose to high tier(MSFckT) feeding to lower tier(us-the people) what it wants.

I don't why I started thinking about this but I guess it remains in the core basis of how will Open Source succeed and I fell back into the stance of how does it stand within human understanding of its organization and that seems to me as a democracy which the USA is based out of and seems to be taking over the world due to that fact and maybe that will lead to Open Source to helping our own civilization as a whole.

Whoooa..all this philosophy.. think I am still buzzed from drinking too much last night..

p.s. i tried to post this to GENERAL in the first place but it said I don't have rights so i guess since I am so new ... that's why i posted this here.

OSS is a great example of free-market capitalism at its finest.

We saw Microsoft dominating the market through less-than-ethical means, setting itself up as a monopoly in the 90's.

But it was an artificial one. And a temporary one.

The free market itself is a constantly changing entity. Open Source Software and the companies that profit from it are an aspect of that.

Microsoft isn't truly a monopoly anymore. If it were, it would have nothing at all to fear from OSS-bearing companies.

But right now, MS is scrambling to find a way to do something they've never had to do: actually compete against other companies on things like price, quality, and public perception.

In such a situation, MS is going to have problems, mostly because they've never competed before in the free market. They've always engaged in tactics that made it unnecessary for them to compete.

Microsoft isn't capitalism. Capitalism requires a free market. They're quite the opposite of it. They've done everything they could throughout their history to avoid the free market, and have made a fortune doing it.

But the market is taking advantage of their inability to truly compete, and now they have some big problems on their hands if they don't figure that out.

OSS isn't communism. It's innovation and ingenuity and it will lead to a profitable new model for software and business in our lifetimes.

Even though it is not communism, communism isn't the evil that "they" make it out to be...

titanum_geek

PS: sorry, but I just thought I'd say it. no flame bait.

Quote:

Originally posted by titanium_geek Even though it is not communism, communism isn't the evil that "they" make it out to be... titanum_geek PS: sorry, but I just thought I'd say it. no flame bait.

That may be true. We don't know; communism has never actually been tried. All past and present "communist" regimes are really capitalist, with just one capitalist... running things...

People's definition of both communism and capitalism tend to vary a lot, therefore OSs can be both.

It is capitalism in the sense that the best solution wins and will rise above the others. This is called technocracy. But is it the best code that will win or the one that seems best? In the latter case i would define it capitalism and the former both capitalism and technocracy.

On the other hand OSS i communism because the work are property of the community. One crucial part of capitalism is the right to own property and to me it doesn't seem to come along well with either GPL or BSD license.

Is it democracy then?
Democracy means that the people decide, in the world of software it would be the users. But is it the users, developers or companys who decide?
If it is the developers it would mean either technocracy or dictatorship. If the developers know the best it's the first, but that is certainly not always true therefore it can also be dictatorship.

As you see it's not easy to define and because the ideaologies doesn't cover every aspect of life they tend to overlap each other.

If something's wrong with my grammar i'd be glad if you pointed it out.

All interesting points, and the grammar looks great to me

I love the idea of being able to take an idea that exists in a 'digital world' and apply it to the real world('politics'.) This proves to me that my original idea is an interesting one and someting to be discussed amongst intelligent people who can conceptualize its meaning.

So far.. most roads are leading to a democracy with OSS development and not much resistance in that area. I would be interested in hearing the resistance because I am a 'devils advocate' type of person.

Feel free to rant your notion but make it an educated one.

Free software shares many of the same ideals with communism because a free software project isn't really owned by anyone (the copyright holder can be seen as holding the copyleft in trust for the user community). As under ideal communism, people contribute to the community to their abilities and in return receive a product they may need. Also, as with anarchial forms of communism, there is no requirement that someone contribute back to the community.

Free software also shows similarities to anarchism because anyone can contribute without much deference to hierarchy in the project--or they can fork the project if they want. Even the leaders of free and open-source software projects are more coordinators than actual leaders.

In other words, free, open-source software is anarcho-communist, as opposed to the statist versions of "communism" practiced by the Soviet Union, China, and Cuba.

On the other hand, the software developed by the Microsoft Corporation and software companies like it is capitalist. All software is owned by the corporation, and users are typically required to purchase a license to use the software. Unlike free software, proprietary software severely narrows the user's usage domain. There is something of a community of end users, but they are usually well outside the closed circle of corporate-salaried developers.

Because capitalism tends to put the bulk of valuable resources, or capital, in the hands of relatively few, it is oligarchial--quite the opposite of the more democratic anarcho-communist system, which puts control in the hands of everyone.

Ah, but any and all individuals are free and welcome to profit from said "community property" in any way they see fit, so long as the market supports their business and product/service they are offering around it. All that without even being required to contribute back to that community. It's like having a piece of public land that anyone can grow crops on and sell, and not have to pay anything to use it.

Sure, you have to work to plant and harvest and you have to work to sell it to people, and some people just come walking onto it and are allowed to plant their own crops for themselves for free, but as an overall, if you're clever, and you find a great way to add some value to it, you can make a great profit with what you grow on that community land.

You can sell your crops to people that don't want to farm or work the land themselves (or can't). You can sell your services to others to help them set up their own farms on that public land. An enterprising individual can find lots of ways to make a buck with such a "community" resource.

And that again makes it a fine example of capitalism.

With a closed source business model, only one entity can profit from its particular product.

With open source, anyone that is motivated enough to can potentially profit from the product.

This is part of why OSS will revolutionize the entire concept of software... it's a new way to profit from a kind of product that's been around as long as computers have been. It's a new way of looking at business, and potentially a widely beneficial one.

Not to mention, with the "open" nature of it, it has the potential to create millions of competitors rather than just a handful of them.

Competition means more people can operate in the free market, and that always is a good thing for everyone. Better products, better services, more choices.

And open source virtually precludes the possibility of predatory monopolies arising around it by its very nature... ensuring that there will always be some competition present.

Sounds like self-sustaining capitalism to me.

"Community" doesn't necessarily automatically equate "communism".