Open Source Equals Socialism
Open Source Equals SocialismWhen people initially hear about OpenSource software, they often have sincere concerns and views that lead to them becoming OpenSourceDetractors?.
Open source proponents should be aware of these and be able to intelligently counter these views.
On this page, both parties can express their views and concerns, make their claims, hear counter-points, and defend their position.
This page could be a great resource for both parties, who can then form better-informed and more objective opinions.
Summary of some of the more ... how to say this politely? ... interesting views:
Some of these statements are true, some are false. Please debate below.
I liked what CarlosNsRodrigues wrote, but thought I could improve on it to make a better OpeningStatement. Here's the original one in case I was wrong. -- DavidCary
This might be a troll - it contains little new argument, and nothing that hasn't been discredited before.
I'm not the original author of this comment, but I agree with it. Don't DisagreeByDeleting, please.
This page seems to mostly have been sparked by a rant, but this rant expresses concerns and views that are often held by OpenSourceDetractors?, and that might be considered by people when they initially hear of OpenSource. Open Source proponents should be aware of these and be able to intelligently counter these views. This is a great place for both parties to make their claims, hear counter-points, and to defend & argue their position. I think this page could be a great resource for both parties, who can then form better-informed and more-objective opinions. -- CarlosNsRodrigues
Here MichaelDevere Expresses his Opinion. Rebuttals are in Italics.
(If you add to this section, please use bold if you agree that OS==Socialism, and italics if you don't, and please sign your name to your contribution.)
Open Source is a socialist concept and has no place in a capitalist society.
You have made no parallels or comparisons with Socialism, nor do you identify what you believe supports this claim. Thus this claim is unsupported and moot. -- CarlosNsRodrigues
There seems to be an interesting (though wrong-headed) doctrine afoot here - namely that the giving of value away (particularly IntellectualProperty, which can be duplicated and redistributed for negligible cost) should be prevented - because it might injure those who make a living selling competing products/technology. About the only rational justification I can see for this viewpoint is the set of laws against "dumping" or "predatory pricing" - when one industrial concern, typically with lots of $$$ or access to government support, deliberately undercuts the competition with the intent of driving them out of business (and subsequently raising prices back up once the competition is eliminated). This principle doesn't really apply to software - Microsoft itself made that argument when it defended itself against charges that giving InternetExplorer away was tantamount to predatory pricing. -- AnonymousDonor
The Open Source movement might be good from the narrow perspective of an end-use technical tweaker, whose primary interest is gaining access to the source code for broad, enterprise applications for the advancement of their personal knowledge. Tweakers want to expand their own knowledge for free without having to pay lots of money for essential ingredients like operating systems and software applications. Since they are tweakers, they risk spending money for something and then grow bored or dissatisfied with their efforts. That would be a waste of their hard-earned cash, therefore everything should be available to them for free. That way they can have intrinsic access, and ultimately the freedom to abandon it without financial risk. As a techie myself, that's a pretty cool place to be.
However, the OpenSource community is very bad for the EyeTeeIndustry? in the UnitedStates for multiple reasons.
First of all, the Open Source DevelopmentModel? leads to a strong probability of 'forking' a code base, resulting in the development of multiple incompatible versions of programs, weakened interoperability, product instability, and hindering a business' ability to strategically plan for the future. We only have to look at the net results of the UNIX experiment to see this reality. Have we not learned from this debacle?
Actually, we have. Forking is not intrinsically bad - in fact, many believe it's a good thing. Much interesting research occurs on forks, not on the main branch. The LinuxOs kernel has forked many times. What is bad are multiple proprietary, incompatible forks - done to achieve VendorLockIn. This is what almost killed off UNIX; all the various UnixVendors? had their own incompatible extensions. The GnuGeneralPublicLicense solves this problem - you can fork all you want, but you cannot keep the results to yourself. It makes re-merging possible. -- AnonymousDonor
Open Source has inherent security risks due to UnknownEntities? pursuing their own agenda with the development initiative without any recourse or responsibility. Any organization takes a huge risk in implementing enterprise applications of this nature without having the resources on hand to become experts in every aspect of every line of code in the application.
The same can be said of proprietary software - but the situation there is worse. With OpenSource, you can inspect the code if you want - you don't have to. With proprietary, you have to trust the vendor - the source code is not available to you. There are many software vendors out there - Microsoft being a prime example - who are inherently untrustworthy. --- AnonymousDonor
Open Source is inherently more secure than ProprietaryCode?, especially if part of a responsible OpenSourceProject?. In these projects, all code gets thoroughly examined and tested before being added to the main codebase. Not only that, but the codebase is examinable by anyone who wants to do so. Thus it is impossible to add malicious code, because it will be discovered and rejected. Additionally, even if someone DID add MaliciousCode?, it's Open Source, so you can just go into the source yourself and remove it. Problem solved. -- CarlosNsRodrigues
More importantly, Open Source directly attacks capitalism by forcing intellectual property ownership into the public domain. While Microsoft has finally agreed to let users 'see' the code that has heretofore been kept hidden, it will not let developers redistribute or alter the source-code in any way, denying open-source developers their ultimate goal. Allowing such freedoms is tantamount to giving away the company's greatest asset, its IntellectualProperty.
Nonsense. All developers have the choice to use open-source or not. Like with any third-party library, if you want to use it, you have to accept the authors' TermsAndConditions?. -- AnonymousDonor
Microsoft is only starting to agree to release some of their code due to pressure from the U.S. military and the E.U., and only because they're being forced to do so. -- CarlosNsRodrigues
U.S.-based, capitalist, for-profit software companies must emphatically remain committed to a model that protects the intellectual property rights in software and ensures the continued vitality of an independent software sector that generates revenue and will sustain ongoing research and development. No intellectual property means no business model, no revenue, no R&D budget, and consequently no CommercialInnovation?. And without CommercialInnovation?, an economy already in trouble is bound to get worse.
Rubbish. If there were no intellectual property, there would be a different BusinessModel to fund all of the above. As for reliance on "commercial innovation", that's rubbish too. Commercial innovation would still continue, and even if it didn't, academic innovation would continue, which is just fine. Academic research developed the InterNet, FreeBsd, RsaEncryption?, and much much more. Just have a look at all the projects that MIT has had a hand in. -- CarlosNsRodrigues
As a software developer, how do you plan to make a living if everyone is using FreeSoftware? That's a good question, and the OpenSourceCommunity? doesn't offer much of an answer.
Upwards of ninety-percent of software that is written (for which programmers are paid) is commercial enterprise application code that is not deployed outside the company that wrote it. In other words, highly-customized software tailored to specific requirements. OpenSource does not pose a threat to this. -- AnonymousDonor
For possible alternate business models, read Eric S. Raymond's "The Magic Cauldron" <http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/magic-cauldron/>. In short, one of the answers is providing service and support (ala RedHat), another is to SELL Open Source products (ala SuseLinux). Yes, SELL Open Source. Open Source Software (OSS) isn't *free* software, it's *open* software. When you buy it, you get the source as well as the product. It just so happens that a lot of OSS is free, but there are several OSS licences that allow you to sell your software and that allow you to include OSS in the product that you sell. -- CarlosNsRodrigues
(Moved OffShoring discussion to OffShoring)
Open Source is frequently touted as more than just an alternative development model. It is portrayed as the antithesis to big business monopolies. While Microsoft has come to represent the evils of capitalist development, Open Source has come to represent socialist collectivism. Thus LinusTorvalds describes himself as an 'accidental revolutionary'. And Open Source champion EricRaymond describes Linux as 'subversive'. Just when social alternatives in the real world have completely collapsed, socialism seems to be revitalized by computer programmers. But there is nothing inherently progressive about OpenSource. What seems to motivate much of the Open Source movement is the idea that they might be undermining the success of big business.
If there was "nothing inherently progressive about OpenSource", why is ApacheServer? the most popular web server? Why is Linux the most popular BusinessEnterpriseServer?? Why are clusters done with *nix-based systems instead of NT? Why is Linux the most sought after OS for remote devices? Because OpenSourceDevelopment? works.
Open Source development attracts a myriad of developers from across the globe, who then work on the software because they want to and because they are passionate about it, not because their managers tell them to. It also allows for more thorough testing, because enthusiasts use it and submit bug reports which are then fixed. OSS's enthusiasts trumps a company's 5-developer "testing team". Every developer knows that users are the ones who end-up finding all the bugs. Thus the "release-often, test-often" method of OpenSource allows for more reliable software NOW, as opposed to waiting 6 months for the next service pack or upgrade. Doesn't it irk you when you have to pay for the features that should've already been in the product when you bought it in the first place? If so, you know part of why Open Source is so attractive.
Yes, Open Source developers like to snub their noses at big-business monopolies, especially MicroSoft. Revelling in being able to one-up the big guys, is human nature. That's the keyword though "monopolies", not "big businesses". (Monopolies=tyranny, big business=capitalism) In theory, monopolies are good for consumers, but in practice, monopolies abuse their market-dominance. That's exactly what's happening. Abusive monopolies stifle competition. Microsoft harasses OS competitors (e.g. Lindows) and obstructs non-OS competitors from having their software operate on a level-playing field (e.g. NetScape & RealNetworks). These aren't the practices of a capitalist, but of a tyrant. Open Source doesn't demonize Microsoft, it did it all on its own. Open Source advocates don't hate Microsoft (Hell, we're all developers. My best friend works for MicroSoft. And, for some, MicrosoftIsaNiceMonopoly), but thanks to Microsoft's business practices, it doesn't evoke much love.
Open Source is an attempt to put some of the power back into the right hands - developers' hands - instead of those of monopolies. When entrance into a market is as difficult as what it is now with software, then you need some lever to get yourself in. Open Source is that lever. It's about giving every developer the chance to contribute and to compete. -- CarlosNsRodrigues
As software developers, we are fortunate to be gainfully employed by a for-profit software company in these trying economic times. Why in the heck would we want to support any philosophical movement which attack the very fabric of opportunity which provides the fundamental basis of our own careers?
It should be grounds for immediate dismissal, as there are plenty of developers who would much rather be getting paid by an evil, for-profit company than giving away all of their efforts for free under the ideological banner of collective good while their unemployment is running out.
This conclusion is refuted by the counterpoints provided above in italics.
I love FreeSpeech. It allows MichaelDevere to defend his standard, and for me to defend mine. -- CarlosNsRodrigues
...and you always get what you ultimately pay for.
An adage that's more applicable to manufactured goods than to Open Source. Open Source isn't a product but a process, and it's a process that has produced, and is producing, high-quality products. Thus the above comment is more flippant than relevant. -- CarlosNsRodrigues
Reactions to the Above Rant
If it's not a troll, it's tosh anyway. It misstates UnixHistory (UNIX wasn't Open Source when it forked - most of the forks derive from AT&TSysV). It asserts (wrongly) that offshore development can only work with if given the (open) source - go look at what Wipro or Infosys actually do. It isn't "forcing intellectual property ownership into the public domain" any more than releasing a CD of clipart and photos into the public domain does (that "Open Source" isn't killing the market for proprietary photos and clipart, and neither will the presence of Open Source software). Most software is written for internal use and not sold and most software developers work on that kind of software, so whether it's Open Source or not does not affect their remuneration - and should you want to keep your valuable IP in closed source, no one is stopping you anyway.
I like how substantive remarks made by myself are summarily deleted because it's the one objection that OpenSource guys cannot overcome. The idea that IntellectualProperty is bad or wrong means that you have no pride of ownership of your work and creativity. Your efforts are immediately owned by society as a whole, and that has been proven to not work as a social construct. Ask StephenKing how he feels about your idea that his books should be given away freely and not protected as IntellectualProperty.
Rebuttal:
"I like how substantive remarks made by myself are summarily deleted"
What got deleted? The only one I saw deleted (and yes, deleting it was wrong) was a comment [that] yours was a "board room view"
"means that you have no pride of ownership of your work and creativity."
Why should you be required to be proud you own it? What's wrong with being proud you created it, which doesn't required ownership?
"Your efforts are immediately owned by society as a whole, and that has been proven to not work as a social construct."
Again, OpenSource is not compulsory. It has not been proved that this doesn't work (and if you think any real world socialist or communist state actually had all property owned by the state, you need to read up on your history. I don't think it would work, but it certainly hasn't been proved not to).
"how [StephenKing] feels about your idea that his books should be given away freely"
Who is saying they should be given away? You're confusing the FreeSoftware crowd (FSF etc, who do promote that all software should be free but free as in FreeSpeech, not as in FreeBeer) with the Open Source crowd (who argue that freely available software has advantages, but don't generally promote it as being compulsory, just that releasing the source is compulsory'').
[Just to clarify, I don't believe than anyone (important) in the FreeSoftware movement advocates forcibly freeing (say, by government fiat) software. They simply believe that FreeSoftware is inherently superior (not necessarily technically, but socially and even morally) to proprietary software. The goal is a place where closed source software is essentially non-existent, not because it's been legislated against or because it's been forcibly removed, but because (A) people understand and desire the freedom of FreeSoftware and (B) because in the presence of FreeSoftware, the incentive for people to use closed-source software is absent.]
Free (Libre) and Open Source Software (FLOSS)
Open code is based on ease of entry, transparency, full information, and therefore functioning markets. Proprietary licensed code is based on monopoly, closed markets (no entry), limited information, limited innovation, and customer lock-in. Just because proprietary code creates a right of exclusion that does not mean that removal of some elements of that right is communism or socialism. Open code and free software create rights as well including reputation rights, integrity rights, and limits on future use. FLOSS is not public domain and it is explicitly not state-owned.
Open code is capitalism. Closed code is a centralized, coordinated market that is controlled by those who manage to corner the market (by first mover advantages or leveraging other previous market advantages). Customers are not free to move from product to product, from vendor to vendor.
FLOSS is no more communism than is communications in the wireless local loop with interconnection.
For example, IBM is contributing to FLOSS in part to 1. be able to more effectively compete in the services market, 2. to prevent long term lock-out from the server market by mitigating the potential risk of the Wintel platform, 3. and to have a chance to grab 100% of a customer IT budget rather than (100% - closed software%).
Clearly socialism is not at play at InternationalBusinessMachines.
Excellent short treatments of the economics can be found in "IT Doesn't Matter" from HBS; "Linux Adoption in the Public Sector" by Varian; and "The Simple Economics of Open Source" by Lerner.
-- L Jean Camp
I think it's ridiculous to say that "socialist concepts have no place in a capitalist country". They seem to be working pretty well in CanadaCountry. -- KarlKnechtel
Is Canada a capitalist country? -- MikeSmith
I'll assume that's a serious question. Yes, it is. It's amazing how uninformed some people are.
In an fine example of LaynesLaw; there are some (mainly right-wingers) that seek to redefine "socialism" to include any sort of regulation on the economy and/or income redistribution program. In other words, anything other than strict laissez-faire capitalism -- is "socialism". Many of the FallaciousArguments deal with this sort of obfuscation -- see EquivocationFallacy, ThoseNotLikeMeAreAllAlike
[Hence such utterances are at best ignorant, work there way through disingenuous, and at worst are downright dishonest.]
I've spent some time in and around Socialism. One of the more striking attributes of this system is enforced redistribution of wealth/resources.
This seems to be in stark contrast with the concept of giving away something you've created, without actually giving up what you have.
Whether this is a great BusinessModel isn't the point. The point is involuntary vs voluntary contribution of effort and resources.
I would have to say that the basic premise of this page title is ... flawed. -- GarryHamilton
['Flawed' is a bit too charitable. 'Inane' is, I think, more fitting.]
I think the original poster really means that OpenSource goes against AynRand's ObjectivismPhilosophy?.
It doesn't, despite what some RandRoids? would have you believe. I obtain an objective value by writing free software: it creates a market in which I can obtain other useful software (and ideas!) for free. AynRand never argued that a hawkish or greedy strategy yielded the best value; only that the pursuit of objective value was the only acceptable MoralImperative?. In fact a TitForTat strategy is often better in competitive situations. -- DavidKTurner
Anyone who uses words like 'socialism', 'capitalism', 'conservative', 'radical', or 'liberal' has already abandoned reality for the fantasy world of political abstractions, and should not be taken seriously.
The fact that I say such things all the time does not change this, as anyone who has read anything I've posted should know better than to take me seriously anyway. -- JayOsako
EditText of this page
(last edited July 12, 2007)
or FindPage with title or text search