On 5/18/06, Rod Heyd <rsheyd@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <more_rambling>
>
> Frankly, I've always felt the comparisons of open source to communism show
> a distinct lack of understanding of the environment from which the ideas of
> open source sprang.
>
> Richard Stallman is an academic and a computer scientist and it is from
> within that environment that the methodology of open source was developed.
> As someone who has worked in the field of the sciences, I can attest to the
> fact that scientific progress occurs most efficiently when information can
> be exchanged without any restrictions.  This is the whole point of
> scientific journals, and the underlying motivation of the "publish or
> perish" mantra in academia.  If you are a researcher at a university and you
> aren't publishing your work, then you aren't contributing and you don't
> deserve the support of your institution.
>
> Stallman adapted the methodology used for at least the last 3 centuries by
> the scientific community to the software development world and called it
> open source.  There is nothing inherently Marxist about that.  If people
> want to make such comparisons, that's fine, but if they do so, they are
> missing the point *and* failing to recognize that the ideas that open source
> came from pre-date Marx by at least 200 hundred years, probably longer.
> Open source is not, nor was it ever intended to be a model of a
> socio-economic system.  The point was to generate better code that is
> available to everyone to improve and extend, nothing more, and nothing less.
>
>
> </more_rambling>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Rod
>
> On 5/18/06, Victor Odhner <vodhner@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > <ramble>
> >
> > Free Software does indeed have some strong resemblances
> > to classic Marxism.  What makes this possible, in the field of
> > software, is that a knowledge resource can be replicated
> > indefinitely, so we can share something and still have it.
> > Not so with physical resources:  it's always a trade-off.
> >
> > In the Marxist definition, Capitalism is also a central control
> > of the means of production, only it's for the sake of the Bad
> > Guys, while State Socialism is for the sake of the Good
> > Guys.  As Orwell said, all animals are equal, only some
> > animals are more equal than others.  Owning things (or
> > managing them) gives us control, and people tend to like
> > being "more equal than others".  But some concentration
> > of power can lead to efficiencies ... within reason.
> > An "owner" can be like Linus, or like Bill.
> >
> > We are now seeing excessive concentration of power in
> > the hands of corporations, which lots of people see as OK
> > because they are providing us with bread and circuses.
> > But the downside is getting more obvious, so I'm confident
> > the pendulum will swing, and Free Software is part of that.
> >
> > Constructive, generous, altruistic motives are a good thing.
> > Selfish motives get a lot of stuff done too.  It's all about
> > balance.
> >
> > </ramble>
>
>
Umm, one small correction:
> Stallman adapted [...] and called it open source.

Nope.  What Stallman calls it, is "Free Software".
Not only is "open source" not == "Free Software",
but Stallman considers the difference to be important.
He talks about it on some of the gnu project web pages -- see
  http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/
In fact, his answer (more detailed than just 'no') to the question
"Is `Open Source' Synonymous With `Free
Software'?<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html>".

is given in an essay entitled
<< Why ``Free Software'' is better than ``Open Source'' >>
at
  http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html
-- 
Mike Schwartz
Glendale  AZ
schwartz@acm.org
Mike.L.Schwartz@gmail.com