This thought came to me in the shower today. Open source checks most of the boxes. It is a collaborative, worker owned (develloper-owned) project, that tries to flatten hierarchy. Especially if you look at something like Debian ), which really tries to have a bottom-up structure.
Of course, there are exceptions, considering there are a lot of corporate open-source projects, that are not democratically maintained and clearly only serve the interest of the company, who created it (like chromium for example).
So I am mainly talking about community-oriented FOSS projects here.
And if you were to agree with my statement, would you say that developing FOSS software is advancing the goals of the anarchist / communist project, because it is laying the groundwork infrastructure needed for a new kind of economy and society?
Thought this could be an interesting discussion!
That was indeed a really interesting read! It really made me think more deeply about software licencing. I didn't quite understand what the authors problem with GPLv3 was though? That the companies are scared of it? Isn't that kind of a good thing? I don't want amazon to make massive profits off of my work, because if that's possible to do, then that would necessarily mean, that my goal as a developer (to protect my work from exploitation while helping the common good) isn't working. I am curious what you have taken away from the essay though? How do you protect your code from corporate exploitation?
The author of that piece would say you protect your code by not open sourcing it (or by using a license that grants no rights to use said source). It's an incredibly frustrating piece to me, because it presents hampering corporations as more important than not screwing over individual FOSS users.
The reason they blame GPLv3 is because they claim the open sourcing requirements within it are so onerous that corporations just avoid it, making it so that rather than corporations contributing to that software, they often end up supplanting it with their own versions that have alternate licensing, which then not only denies the original author any benefit, but even makes the corporation 'look good' to people who don't realize or care what happened.
It's so frustrating to me because they're doing this whole "pragmatism over idealism" claim, while also not acknowledging that FOSS as a movement is the only reason any corporation open sources anything now. They certainly didn't used to. But the author seemingly would rather people not have any tools made with or by companies, who are benefiting from them financially, than have both corporations and individual users benefit from them. That's ideology over pragmatism as well.
Capitalism is bad, but it's bad because it entrenches profit over morality, via the mistaken belief/ false premise that competing interests will average out in the end. It's not bad because every single output it creates is somehow evil incarnate, which seems to be the author's gist.