Is the "free software is communism/socialism" opinion

>>61715136
The narrative behind linux is pretty much communism
you can release something for free just for fun or you just don't care, or you can release something and start screaming that everything should be free
there are many freewares out there that are just free without spreading political agenda
considering that whenever free pops up on /g/ there's linux next to it, hence the frequency of communism

Pretty much no one is of that opinion. Anyone with half a brain realizes that companies are the driving force behind most open source software. The biggest contributors to Linux are Intel and Red Hat.

>>61715136
Much of the Free Software Foundation is openly pro Communism. People aren't completely wrong is making the connection between the two, though not all open source software is "free" software.

The notion that software shouldn't be harmful to users is a good one. Who wouldn't support that? Then you get down into what the FSF actually means by this, and you see that believe that you have to give up all property rights, you can't regard any of your creation as your own, and you're actually compelled to make it available to everyone else to use as they want, completely for free. The concept of Free software isn't against selling software, Stallman will tell you all day long that you can sell your product, but he still says in another breath that you need to make your code available to others for free.

>OP's image
Snake without a beard looks disgusting.

File: 1498260106135.jpg (32KB, 572x184px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 572x184px

He believes a software patent is communist.

It depends what you mean by "communist". It kind of is in an abstract, metaphorical sense, but it bears no relation whatsoever to the authoritarian Eastern governments of the 20th century.

Basically, Americans are paranoid retards that think the eternal commie is out to get them.

That word
I don't believe you know the meaning of it.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html

go read the exact wording of GPL2/3. they take 10 minutes to read and have nothing whatsoever to do with communism.

File: tired.png (26KB, 394x176px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 394x176px

You should have learned not to take this board seriously by now

I learned this, four years ago. The same silly insanity strikes here time from time, and I get bored of the crap, but I still love coming here to watch /pol/ interact with /v/ and old-fashioned idiots.

Free software is shit
Communism is shit

Therefore they are the same

>>61716677
I don't think almost anyone on /g/ can read anything past a paragraph. If it contains any words such as "inane", they stop and laugh for the weirdest reasons.

>>61716447
I̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶n̶k̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶l̶o̶o̶k̶s̶ ̶g̶o̶o̶d̶

>most of the GNU/Linux users are middle class

This really makes you think.

But FOSS is clearly based on ancap principles.

Communism is about state ownership of the means of production, in this case software.

Government creates monopolies on software by enforcing 'intellectual property' laws.

In a free market, you cannot prohibit the distribution or production of ideas.

>>61715629
>equating freeware with free software

it's no wonder you dumb cucks jump to call the gpl communism

>>61717052
>But FOSS is clearly based on ancap principles.
Holy hell you're clueless.

The FSF considers it to be "harmful" if you don't provide source code to the public for free. If you refuse to allow people to alter and redistribute your code you are being harmful. This is the exact antithesis of AnCap ideals. It is directly attacking the idea of ownership.
If I make something, I own it, I don't have to share it with anyone. FSF says that I am compelled to share it against my own wishes.

Actually go kill yourself.

>>61715136
gommunism is not about freedom
gommunism is not about sharing
gommunism is not about people
free software =/= gommunism

>>61717085
So can you direct me to where any FOSS activist advocates forcing developers to share their code?

>>61717085
>not doing harm is the direct opposite of the NAP

>>61717124
If you're this painfully fucking new why are you even posting here? I want to hear a legit answer.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

The four essential freedoms

A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms:

The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.


The Free Software Foundation, the concept of Free Software™ is the exact opposite of private ownership. Free Software™ de facto forbid the entire notion of private ownership.

>>61717155
Get a sharp knife and open your throat with it, kid.

Communism was once just a theoretical idea of a constructed classless society in a book. Now it's turned into the mainstream political equivalent of McDonalds.

Most of everyone in the world hates it, and yet they still talk about it, and a bunch of people who don't know what they are talking about, either intentionally or unintentionally, feed on the shitstorm it generates so much and try to relate it to anything they hate.

>>61717176
>Respecting the freedom of others is communist
>thoughts are property

Again, retard, please direct me to any FOSS activist advocating for the use of force.

>>61715851
>Much of the Free Software Foundation is openly pro Communism.
This is why the connection keeps getting made. Highly doubt most people legitimately believe a "free" program is going to bring communism, otherwise we'd have more android/ios app shitposts.

>>61717176
Not owning things is not the opposite of private ownership.

How can you even program with such a lack of comprehension for basic logic?

>>61715851
>Much of the Free Software Foundation is openly pro Communism.
Give me exact evidence, anything, even a mailing list post, with an FSF developer saying "I support communism!"

"I support Bernie" does not count as evidence.

>>61717222
>instant double think and denial of reality

Stallman and the FSF hold those positions. If your software doesn't meet that criteria then it is considered what they call "harmful." If you refuse to provide your source code, for free, your software is harmful by their standards. If you don't consent to letting people utilize and redistribute your code then you're being harmful.

Their ideology is completely at odds with the notion of ownership. If you don't understand this you're just shitposting and being willfully ignorant, and you should really hurry up and slice your neck open.

>>61717241
Free Software cannot be owned. They want the concept of private ownership to be irrelevant. They have established a moral bar and anything which fails to meet it is considered harmful/problematic/toxic/etc. They use the exact same language and argumentation tactics as Communists in all other areas.

>>61715851
>FSF actually believe that you have to give up all property rights
You're perfectly free to develop your own programs and keep them to yourself, however you cannot exercise control of what other people do with that software because to do so you would need to restrict their right. You would have to use some force to prevent them.

If they're using it on your computer, then they're using your property and you have the right to say yay or nay to them, but if you give them a copy then you cannot morally control what they do with that.

You can enter an agreement laying out the rules, but you're restricting their freedoms by doing so, which is not a moral choice.

>>61715851
>though not all open source software is "free" software.
only if you're a fsf zealot who thinks that tivo/gplv2 is a problem, 99.999% of the time open source means free software

>and you see that believe that
nice grammar pajeet, I hope microsoft are paying for your education

>you have to give up all property rights, you can't regard any of your creation as your own
only if you WILLINGLY reassign copyright to somebody else, under most/all law systems you maintain copyright for code you've written in gpl and you can relicense it how you damn well choose, but you cannot revoke the gpl licence of the code somebody else has (legally) obtained - you GAVE them that right

>and you're actually compelled to make it available to everyone else to use as they want, completely for free
>but he still says in another breath that you need to make your code available to others for free
wrong, you only have to provide source to people you distribute binaries to, if you want to sell binaries you're under no obligation to provide the source to anybody but paying customers; what those customers do is up to them but again you GAVE them those rights by licensing your code under the gpl, for most people who even seriously consider the gpl this isn't a problem; I'm sure redhat didn't even notice centos before they acquired them

>>61717296
>Free Software cannot be owned
ideas cannot be owned.

>>61717306
If I invent something, and you blatantly steal it, and sell it as your own, every developed nation would call you a thief.
Stallman and his FSF lackies would say its all kosher. Code is no different from a music, a painting, or a list of dimensions detailing a machined part. It is the product of a person's labor, and it is property.

>>61717339
Nice Commie rhetoric, Comrade.

>>61715851
You don't know what communism is.

>>61717296
>your code
So if I came up with a simple program, and you come up with the exact same program, completely independently, and we do so at the same time, who 'owns' that code?

How can you own 0's and 1's? How can you own concepts? The idea is ridiculous. If somebody can produce an exact copy of 'your' code, that does not detract from you owning that code, since you still own it and can use it as you please. The other person also owns it, and can use it as they please. Nobody has lost any of their property.

However, if you disalow other people to use their property to make a copy of your code, then the only way you can prevent them doing so is by force. You must harm them or their property in order to prevent them doing something which in no way effects you, other than to make you upset that somebody else is able to do what you can do.

>>61717425
You think you're being clever, like you've come up with some new thought. You haven't. This situation happens all the time. It happens in music, famous composers a thousand years ago were arguing over who came up with a certain chord first. Our patent office is inundated with designs submitted which are exactly like a thousand others.

There is no moral dilemma here, only your gross ignorance.

>>61717363
How can you steal something, yet the victim of this theft has lost no possessions?

>Code is no different from a music, a painting, or a list of dimensions detailing a machined part. It is the product of a person's labor, and it is property.
Correct. However, if I am able to make a copy of the product of your labour, you suffer no loss. You do not gain from it, but you do not lose your property. You still have your property intact.

Are you saying that if you bake a cake, nobody else should be allowed to bake a cake?

File: 1499333389141.jpg (1MB, 3081x2889px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3081x2889px

>>61717461
>patent office
Haraam

>>61717470
The FSF's absurd Communist inspired doctrine doesn't differentiate between personal use and commercial use. Try to be consistent.

The FSF is sitting in a position of power when they issue this dogma. They put the bar in place.

>>61717544
>The FSF's absurd Communist inspired doctrine doesn't differentiate between personal use and commercial use
Neither does AnCap.
Gommunism does, tho

Whether private or commercial, it makes no difference to the Libertarian/FOSS argument.

>>61717595
Things are things no matter what type of thing they are. If your dogma has to include dozens of caveats for specific things then its internally inconsistent and inherently flawed.
A molecule for a drug. A painting. A song. Milspec standards for an AR part. Software isn't any different from these things simply because you want it to be out of convenience.

If you didn't create the thing you have no right to copy and redistribute it for your own profit. FSF says thats okay, any normal functioning person who supports law and reason says its theft. Foot fungus eating mentally deficient Commies shouldn't be issuing demands to anyone.

File: tears.jpg (93KB, 916x515px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 916x515px

>>61717595
This post is not an argument

>>61717656
>If you didn't create the thing you have no right to copy and redistribute it for your own profit
Look, I just took your post, copied it and redistributed it.

How do you define 'create'? If I can play a few notes on a piano, and somebody else plays the same notes, then who 'created' that melody?

>>61717717
>the only argument I can muster is being a smart ass like a 10 year old
Wow, what a shocker.
In the eyes of the law it comes down to who can prove they created, and who created it first. That is how a reasonable society operates.

If the original creator wants to let another party use their chords they can do so, but only of their own free will. There is no one like the FSF saying they *must* relinquish all ownership else they be labeled harmful.

The FSF is literally the SJW of software. Its not a coincidence that there is a such a massive overlap. Its no a coincidence that the so called free software community is filled with trannies who post on twitter about Communism all day long. Draconian ideologues want to destroy private ownership, and that is their only common thread.

>>61717793
>There is no one like the FSF saying they *must* relinquish all ownership else they be labeled harmful.
But that's exactly what you just described when you said:
>In the eyes of the law it comes down to who can prove they created, and who created it first.

In other words, the government will kill you for doing something that doesn't effect anyone in anyway. Sounds pretty commie to me. Especially compared to the FSF who say 'it is moral to not restrict the freedom of others'

How free software advocates used to operate had some serious parallels to anarchist-communism in regards to shit like licensing agreements which were meant to virally ensure people couldn't profit off software, and the mutual reliance on benevolent efforts, but just like with real communism capitalists took over and now are the biggest contributors to Linux.

>>61717793
>their chords
They can't own chords if there's only a finite amount of combinations possible. How is ownership of virtual or abstract information, and the interpretation even possible without the use of violence to restrict anothers rights?

"Free software is socialism" is just straight retarded though except in exceedingly minutes cases like state operated Linux distros. The comparison to commies makes more sense than the comparison to socialists. I'm using socialist in the historic less bastardized sense here.

>>61717891
>just like with real communism capitalists took over and now are the biggest contributors to Linux.
It doesn't quite work that way because software inherently lacks scarcity, which is why it needs to be artificially created through force.
Free software would be essentially the same in socialism as it is now, but most likely without the need for copyleft.

>>61717859
There is no comparison between a group of Communists trying to force everything to conform to their dogma, and a civil society respecting property rights.
You don't have any semblance of an argument any more. You've totally lost it.

>>61717052
>Communism is about state ownership of the means of production

Are you american?

>>61718029
>I make a song on my computer, or wrote a simple program
>it is my creation
>somebody else I've never heard of does the exact same thing
>that guy finds out I have created this thing
>sends gubermint to shoot me

Vs

>I make a song on my computer, or wrote a simple program
>it is my creation
>somebody else I've never heard of does the exact same thing
>that guy finds out I have created this thing
>carries on with his life
>I carry on with mine

File: Screenshot (10).png (43KB, 972x412px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 972x412px

>>61718063

>>61718072
>sends gubermint to shoot me
The fact that you have to post this infantile nonsense proves you know you're being disingenuous.

The FSF's ultimate goal in labeling things as harmful, exactly as we see with SJW culture elsewhere, is censorship. They want to bully and punish everyone into conformity with their Communistic dogma. This is a dogma that inherently is at odds with the concept of private ownership. It says that you cannot own what you create, you must make it available to the people, Comrade.

Go back to taking your HRT and stay in your leftypol discord where you belong, faggot.

>>61715136
>everything I don't like is communism
It's the US Young Partisans, (((Hollywood))) and other authoritarian interests trying to disrupt the place. Just report and ignore.

>>61718174
>"sir, please leave me alone"
>OMFG FUCK OFF YOU COMMUNIST FUCKER STOP TRYING TO SHAME ME INFANTILE NONSENSE FUCK MORALITY
>"ok, but can you please leave me alone"

>>61718174
>It says that you cannot own what you create, you must make it available to the people, Comrade.
>must

No no, the word is 'should'. You've yet to give any example of a FOSS advocate insinuating the use of force.

>>61718272
Your proprietary interests are antithetical to society, therefore society has no interest in enforcing them or allowing you to assert them.
Society has the right and ability to kill you in an instant and not feel the least bit of shame or regret. Maybe you should shut your underage ass up and sit down before they all agree to do so.

>>61718174
>It says that you cannot own what you create
That's a blatant lie.
You can own whatever you create.
You just shouldn't use force to stop other people owning the things they create -which just so happen to be exactly the same as the things you created.

You're not grasping this, are you?

You can make software, I can make the exact same software. You can't stop me creating this piece of software without being immoral through restricting my rights.

>>61718315
was meant for
>>61718174

>>61718106
>owned by you = owned by the state

>>61718323
>You can't stop me creating this piece of software without being immoral through restricting my rights.
Create software all you like. Just don't expect to profit from the other people's work you incorporated into it.

>>61718339
>can't imagine a community without a corporate state telling him what to do
You lack imagination and historical perspective, underager. Maybe /pol/ is a bit more your speed.

>>61718343
>Just don't expect to profit from the other people's work you incorporated into it.
Why?

Have you ever used maths or science? Then you've used other people's work. Every day you use other people's work. Why not?

>>61718355
>I can't read: the post

Perhaps you should stop posting definitions that contradicts your own government.

Also, don't call me fucking /pol/, that board is cancer.

File: 048.png (818KB, 777x1087px) Image search: [Google]

818KB, 777x1087px

>>61718439
fugg, meant "argument" instead of government

>>61718174
/thread

File: IMG_1269.jpg (3MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4032x3024px

>>61715136
>Athiestic jew wants to end private ownership of software and force everyone to share their code with the collective
>Fsf cultists still claim it's nothing like communism at all
The philosphies are near identical, just replace money with code.

File: image.png (224KB, 553x484px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 553x484px

>>61718343
>private individuals are not allows to enact voluntary transactions
>somehow this is not communism
retart

>>61718583
this

>>61715136
Burgerlards don't know the definition of Communism. They think communism means everyone gets welfare checks and get taxed 100%.

Free Software and Copyleft are anti-intellectual property rights, because unlike normal property, intellectual property is not a finite resource and therefore makes no economic sense to set a price on.

Unless Richard Stallman is the fucking president and the state comes and seizes your computer (the means of production) for writing and selling a program that isn't GPL-licensed, the FSF is not communism.

>>61718583

>force
You keep using that word without providing any evidence to support this claim of yours.


>just replace money with code.
Lets see how that works out.

Not communism:
>only the state can control the issuing of money and this is subject to terms
vs

FOSS communism
>private individuals can commit voluntary transactions with whatever they deem viable currency, and it's nobody else's buisiness

File: 1501273009474.png (139KB, 500x610px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 500x610px

>>61718583
>Atheists is Dumb
All the fedora memes in the world can't save you from the undeniable falsehood of your religion.

>Richard Stallman is a Jew
He describes himself as having Jew ancestors, he doesn't identify as a Jew. If RMS is a Jew, then I'm a Pirate.

>>61717222
The GNU gets enforced in court, which is the use of force

>>61718697
The FSF is full of commie SJW faggots, that's why Linus doesn't like it.
And Stallman is pedophilia endorsing fat atheist retard

>>61718772
back to leftypol faggot

File: 1477603247294.jpg (428KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

428KB, 960x540px

>>61718820
>muh essjeydobleyoos
2016 called, they want their memes back

>>61718816

and proprietary licences aren't enforced through the courts? get the fuck out of here you lost your leg to stand on

>>61718816
Using force is fine. It's the initiation of force which is immoral. Such as in the instance of restricting others rights: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/02/27/gpl_enforcement_goes_to_court/

>>61718961
I was only replying to whether FOSS advocates support use of force, which they do

>>61717085

if your only argument that free software isn't based on ancap principles because voluntary/consensual sharing of source isn't within your particular brand of anarcho-capitalism then you're either clueless or being painfully dishonest given that intellectual property rights are a contested issue among ancap philosophy with many ancaps only favouring light copyright laws rather than patent/trademark laws and some advocating for the abolition of the whole system

>FSF says that I am compelled to share it against my own wishes.
they do not, as you said in >>61717296 nice double think

>>61717176
>forbid the entire notion of private ownership
again, many ancaps argue against intellectual property, some even go as far as to say that intellectual property rights are an infringement on (physical) property rights, either way 'private ownership' has little to do with voluntary/consensual licensing of software

>>61717363
>and you blatantly steal it
gpl=theft, good lord with the double think, it's good that you've actually read the gpl so you don't come across as ignora-
>and sell it as your own
oh, never mind

>>61718174
>The FSF's ultimate goal in labeling things as harmful, exactly as we see with SJW culture elsewhere, is censorship.
copyright/trademark/patent laws have also been referred to as censorship especially by the liberal/libertarian/anarchistic(inc ancap) and even communist ideologies with trademark/patent laws being especially egregious given that their main purpose is to stifle innovation and competitive practices with enforcement through the state, I'd almost agree with you that the fsf are fanatical in the pushing of their message but their message is always an invitation, it's always a suggestion, but people wouldn't get that impression from your posts given your attempts to suppress and censor their message with double think, it's almost like you're a neocon in sheep's clothing just for the opportunity to spout on about >muh sjw gommunism

>>61719079

private copyright holders defending the communal ownership of their foss software through the legal means provided to them is a little bit of a stretch from suggesting that they're forcing you to use the gpl

going back in the comment chain,

>>61717176
>Free Software™ de facto forbid the entire notion of private ownership.

little ironic don't you think?

>>61717085
Exactly how in the fuck are you giving ownership of your software to someone else by distributing the source code with it? You still retain all Copyright to your work when you license your code with GPL.

>>61717425
If you have software you wrote own, etc. You can choose what to do with it, including whether or not to distribute it.
Now, suppose you distribite it, but with a contract. This contract prevents them from making copies of the code or binaries you distribute. If they break this contract, they are violating the NAP and therefore subject to force.
Intellectual property is similar to this (replacing the contract with a copyright license) but makes concessions to both parties. Including punishing non-primary offenders (i.e. Someone who bought stolen goods but didn't know = didn't violate the NAP) in exchange for lesser punishments and avoidance of contracts of adhesion.
Some forms of anarcho capitalism abhor the notion that two consenting individuals can form contracts, but that is full crazy mode to any sane person.

>>61715136

> High potency software such as operating systems, compilers, cryptography, etc.. are needed to produce software

> Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production,[10]

> Free software is therefore communism

nice logic, Ashish

>all this stupidity
Maybe Stallman was right about /g/ being full of inane comments