/tech/ - Technology★

>>1032828 (OP)

well to be fair, Stallman is pretty much a commie, or at least a socialist. I've seen his political notes.

Your confusion is that you believe that free software is communism. This is false.

>>1032833

I'm happy to explain why file sharing isn't piracy. Piracy is the act of violence upon the high seas and it involves ships. Sharing a file without authority from the copyright holder is unauthorized file distribution and is not the same as piracy.

>>1032828 (OP)

the myth that floss is communism is not spread by communists or socialists but by retards in an efford to "discredit" floss.

Software licences have not much to do with how the economic system is structured. Acess to source code has nothing to do with how a society distributes labour and wealth.

OP, this board and the internet in general are just retarded, thats all.

>>1032841

actually its only piracy if you take control of a ship in international waters without the authorization of the ships owner.

>>1032828 (OP)

Communism VS Capitalism is a false dichotomy. In capitalism individual entities own the means of production and can conspire with each other and dictate the market. Free Software opposes this, so clearly that means that Free Software is communism because that's the opposite of capitalism, right? No, in communism the means of production are owned by a regulating body, everything is planned and coordinated by a central authority.

In reality Free Software is more like a form of primitivism. In a primitive society anyone could have a small patch of land or a hunting bow and do his thing (more or less of course). The only thing that might prevent you from being a hunter was your skill with the bow, not some arbitrary restrictions placed onto you by the system. Similarly, with Free Software you own your tools, you can see the source, you can change it, you can use the software in whichever way you see fit. Of course some people are better at certain tasks than others, so groups and teams will naturally form, but these groups can just as easily also break apart and still everyone retains all the software.

>>1032882

>the myth that floss is communism is not spread by communists or socialists but by retards in an efford to "discredit" floss.

This.

>>1032909

>In reality Free Software is more like a form of primitivism.

I guess this is the best analogy for the whole "FLOSS as an economic system" I've heard.

>>1032828 (OP)

Ancapism: Copyright is coercion and violeates the NAP.

Freetards: Right Wingers reeeeeeeeeeeeee

>>1032830

He's merely a Keynesian social democrat, sadly.

you dont need political ideology to create a system

infact its fucking problem if you cant be flexible to adapt to problems

>>1032922

Educate yourself, moron. Free Software movement is merely a reaction to the issue of intellectual property. “Freetards” wouldn't be needed the concept copyrights did not exist.

>>1032922

I'm curious about what actual ancaps (and I guess other people in the libertarian spectrum) think of intellectual property. I'm a lolbertarian myself, but I haven't talked about freesoftware/copyright/patents to anyone that I knew were also libertarian/ancaps.

In my opinion, patents/copyright are nothing but a way for the government to give a temporary monopoly to some entity, even if monopolies are against the free market, and such monopolies are not 'temporary' but last up to fucking centuries (thanks disney) and can be extended for eternity thanks to lobbying from corporations. Giving the state such power does nothing but centralize the market in a small group of entities and fucks up competition, specially for small companies and entrepreneurs.

>open source is literal capitalism

>free and open source software is reaction

FTFY, nigger

https://falkvinge.net/2011/02/01/history-of-copyright-part-1-black-death/

From part 2:

"She shared the concern of the Catholic Church over the printing press. The public’s ability to quickly distribute information en masse was dangerous to her ambitions to restore Catholicism, in particular their ability to distribute heretic material. (Political material, in this day and age, was not distinguishable from religious material.) Seeing how France had failed miserably in banning the printing press, even under threat of hanging, she realized another solution was needed. One that involved the printing industry in a way that would benefit them as well.

She devised a monopoly where the London printing guild would get a complete monopoly on all printing in England, in exchange for her censors determining what was fit to print beforehand. It was a very lucrative monopoly for the guild, who would be working hard to maintain the monopoly and the favor of the Queen’s censors. This merger of corporate and governmental powers turned out to be effective in suppressing free speech and political-religious dissent.

The monopoly was awarded to the London Company of Stationers on May 4, 1557. It was called copyright."

>>1032967

I personally agree but you're missing one part. Stallman is against the abolishment of copyright since there is nothing to prevent the Tivo situation if copyleft doesn't exist. You could take open source software, improve on it, then release it without releasing source code if there was no copyright.

>>1032828 (OP) North Koreans use Red Star OS that is a distro of Linux and Windows XP.

South Koreans use Windows 7 and 10 and Android included in Samsung Galaxy S.

>>1033030

"She" means the queen of England.

>>1033043 Ah, I know her! She is quite sexy so I wanna rape her!

>>1032828 (OP)

not sure what you're on about, but IP doesn't exist, it doesn't even make sense

DMCA is an ultracapitalist idea. it's like suing the sun because it gave you skin cancer

>>1032912

agreed

>>1033036

Yeah, programming is probably the only one thing that benefits from copyright. You can disassemble a car but disassembling machine code is just too painful.

>>1032828 (OP)

It's pretty simple, FOSS undermines private property. Even into today software is sold as though it is scarce. Its not straightforward to the layperson on how to make a backup of a PS4 game.

With proprietary software companies had way more control and could charge more for software. Going back to the PS4 example if a game disc breaks the average person will buy another copy instead of booting a backup.

Libre software wrecks all these business models. Anytime you harm someone's ability to make money of their property you are undermining private property. Most software execs still think FOSS is Communist as well. Its not, but you can't deny it doenst hurt private property rights.

>>1032882

This is true of only open source software, not libre software, which very much does effect the economics of software sales.

>>1033100

programming _doesn't_ benefit from copyright you nignog. it's a prime example of why copyright is retarded

>You can disassemble a car but disassembling machine code is just too painful.

false and false. already done and anyone too lazy to read assembly is too lazy to read source code beyond some retarded high level analysis to post to HN for upvotes

>>1033117

I'd love to see you “analyze” the 1s and 0s of some huge shit like Photoshop.

>>1033127

>Photoshop

Who would want to have that pile of garbage?

It comes with a fucking browser because it uses HTML and Flash for the GUI and it's like an OS in itself.

>>1033101

FLOSS undermines the idea of making money out of thin air. In every field you get paid for your work. You build a house, you get paid and then you build another house. Proprietary software aims to allow you to build a house once and then replicate it at next to no cost and keep selling it as if you actually built it.

I have a piece of software I have been selling on the side and it is downright frightening that after I was essentially done building it (aside from minor update) I could still keep getting paid for it and making money without working. The well has been running dry, so it's not like I can keep this thing running forever, but it was still generating quite a nice sum of money.

FLOSS has no problem with people selling their software, it has a problem with someone artificially keeping their customer on a tight leash.

>>1033052

>DMCA is ultracapitalist

Haven't read the whole act, but the takedown system is pretty light. Website owners can host whatever copyrighted shit they want, as long as they take it down when requested by the copyright holder. Zero consequences against the website or the uploader.

>>1033150

A house costs hundreds of thousands of dollars, because you need a team of skilled craftman to spend a year or more building it for you. Since only one family can live in the house, they need to bear the cost themselves. With software, where the product can be shared by millions of people, it makes more sense to spread out the cost. I guess you could use crowdfunding instead, but that would be much more limiting.

>>1033190

>team of skilled craftsman

surrrrrre paco went through years of expenisve training on the level of a doctorate to properly lineup 2 by 4s and nail them in place

>>1032967

Copyfree or dual licencing >>> Strict Copyleft

We have a right to make any contracts we like as long as we don't violate other people's freedom to do whatever to their code.

See >>1032970

>>1033036

Tivo is something that we have to deal with using voluntary contracts. Helicopter rides for intel.

>>1033052

> DMCA is an ultracapitalist

More like anti-ancap.

>>1033190

It's perfectly fine to spread the cost of developing software. The problem is asking users to give up their software freedom in the process of that. When users choose to accept that, then users cannot have freedom with that choice.

>>1032883

Actually software pirates were people who not only downloaded a game/movie/album off the internet, but also sold it on physical discs(at a much lower price than an official version) and made a profit out of this. I know this, because this is how I got games, before I had an internet connection. I am curious if there are any "pirates" who would defend this?

>>1033139

> ad hominem

As expected.

>>1033036 You're right. If there had been copyright law, the open source or free software movements couldn't have survived!

>>1032828 (OP)

The more power they get, the better for them.

Free and open software isphilanthropy faggot. When I share my code and give non-techs free software it's not because I'm a leftist its because I don't think I should charge royalties on a bit of code.

Coprights are a way to hoard intellectual property.

Also software piracy hurts Jews so keep doing it. Fuck your copyrights faggots.

Yes goyim pay $200 for Windows when Linux is free and you can reveiw the source code of each and every package before installing it maintaining the stability and security of your system.

>>1033101

No it does the opposite, it gives you property rights. You own the copy of software on your computer and may do with it as you please as opposed to monthly subscription based software with multiple page TOS regulating you.

>Anytime you harm someone's ability to make money of their property you are undermining private property

Wrong. The concept of private property has nothing to do with money, it is simply the idea that a entity can have ownership of property and do with it as they please. If someone else want to let others use their property for free that doesn't hurt the concept of private property.

>>1032828 (OP)

Communist do not practice what they preach.

> ayy capitalist pigs are stealing your bread

< proceed to force you to work without bread

>>1033516

>and you can reveiw the source code

Well (((they))) found a way around that, just add more and more bloat until it's unauditable by common man then charge you fees for solving problems that they created in the first place.

Calling it software communism is like calling FS cultural Marxism. It's just a stupid buzzword.

>>1033568

< proceed to force you to work without bread

I guess Trump is a communist now?

>>1033584

Communism has always been a meaningless buzzword, especially after the anti-USSR American propaganda. Boomers were taught to call everyone they disagree a ‘commie’. Millennials are taught to call everyone they disagree with a ‘nazi’

>>1033573

You can thank C and Unix for that, requiring a million lines to do basic things certainly doesn't help.

>>1033646

You're saying that as if it was hard to write impossible to understand shit in other languages.

>>1032828 (OP)

>free software is communism

>intellectual property is enforced by the government

>>1032841

>>1032833

>Sharing a file without authority from the copyright holder is unauthorized file distribution and is not the same as piracy.

Copyright and intellectual property is communism.

>>1032882

>>1032828 (OP)

>the myth that floss is communism is not spread by communists or socialists but by retards in an efford to "discredit" floss.

>Software licences have not much to do with how the economic system is structured. Acess to source code has nothing to do with how a society distributes labour and wealth.

Communism is when the state dictates what you can do, not can do with your property.

So if you do an "unauthorized file distribution", it means you arange some information containing bits of your own hardware, property in a way that it is equivalent, but not identical, to some different arangement someone has made once on his own hardware.

If that is illegal, then the government infringes in your right to do with your property as you please.

"unauthorized file distribution" does not infring the property of someone else, so it can not be said it is like puting your property, hardware trough the property, hardware of someone else (like stabing, shooting something, someone).

>>1032967

>>1032922

>Free Software movement is merely a reaction to the issue of intellectual property.

GNU Free Software Licence works within the constrains of intellectual property rights (mandated state license), so is "communist" in conception, like Adobe and Microsoft too.

>>1032970

>>1032922

>I'm curious about what actual ancaps (and I guess other people in the libertarian spectrum) think of intellectual property. I'm a lolbertarian myself,

Doesn't work in reality, like communism too.

>In my opinion, patents/copyright are nothing but a way for the government to give a temporary monopoly to some entity, even if monopolies are against the free market, and such monopolies are not 'temporary' but last up to fucking centuries (thanks disney) and can be extended for eternity thanks to lobbying from corporations. Giving the state such power does nothing but centralize the market in a small group of entities and fucks up competition, specially for small companies and entrepreneurs.

So "capitalism" doesn't work like "communism" doesn't work, "as writen on the box". Both are labels in intelectual masturbation and deception of the great unwashed masses.

Inequality occures naturaly, because people are inequal.

So it is natural that some use their talents to gain advantage over others. This will not change as long as there are humans, is sentinent life on earth.

Those that gained an advantage over others in a situation favouring them, try to permeate that advantage for eternety. This can be seen as a "natural law too".

Those in an advantaged position will see that as "fair result of competition", because others were "weak", "lazy", "stuppid".

It isn't so that there are no weak, stupid and lazy people, but those in power will always try to frame their advantaged situation as "fair", adjust sociological constitution, like laws, in way favouring them.

BTW the "Social Justice Warriors" are nothing but such a upper class warfare against the middle and lower classes, that have a realistical chances to grow as a competition to the (((ruling classes))). The niggers, dumb women (AKA feminists) just play the role of guard dogs that stupidily bites at anything their owner waves in front of their nose.

There will be always talented and not so talented people, and outright stuppid people. It is so that someones talent might no needed now, the situation might not be ready, while other have just the right skills for the situation.

>>1033101

>>1032828 (OP)

>Anytime you harm someone's ability to make money of their property you are undermining private property.

Anytime I'm better than you I undermine your "God given right" to take advantage of your property?

>>1032967

>Free Software movement is merely a reaction to the issue of intellectual property

Nope, beceause without intellectual property, proprietary software can still be released.

In a world without proprietary software a developer can still released a bloated mess with source or a program with no source, and that would violate the user's right to modify the program if they so wish.

>>1036150

>Nope, beceause without intellectual property, proprietary software can still be released.

Yes and that would be ok. No one should be prevented from creating proprietary software, in the same breath, no one should be prevented from using the property they worked hard to acquire in order to tear apart the machine code of said program, reverse engineer it and redistribute it or any leaked source code at will (unless of course they signed an NDA or some other contract explicitly stating that they would not do that).

Free software exists to take the power out of the hands of those who would legislate to tell us what we can do with ideas, and we do this by answering them with our ideal. Once the dust settles and intellectual property is no longer recognised as valid property free software licences can be done away with, they have served their purpose.

>>1036174

>No one should be prevented from creating proprietary software

Oh, it's an american.

>>1036189

I'm not from burgerland, I just don't believe in intellectual property and copyleft is meaningless without copyright. You can't have both, I value the ability to reverse engineer proprietary software effectively, distribute it and make full use of leaked source code over the ability to stop people writing proprietary software. I'm not going to start clogging courts because someone didn't share their code.

>>1033675

>Copyright and intellectual property is communism.

>Property rights are communism.

Read a book.

>Communism is when the state dictates what you can do, not can do with your property.

Lol please read a book. There's more to it then that. Communism is when the WORKERS own all the property. How is using software a corporation paid to have written, for free actually capitalism LMAO. It's like saying not paying rent is capitalism.

>So if you do an "unauthorized file distribution", it means you arange some information containing bits of your own hardware, property in a way that it is equivalent, but not identical, to some different arangement someone has made once on his own hardware.

LMAO, this is the dumbest spiting of hairs I've ever seen. Your hardware and hard drive space is worthless without the software you're stealing running on top of it. That's like saying if I steal the book you've written, it's not stealing because I used my own paper to pirate your book.

>If that is illegal, then the government infringes in your right to do with your property as you please.

It the property of the software company that you are infringing on, not the use of your own computer.

>GNU Free Software Licence works within the constrains of intellectual property rights (mandated state license), so is "communist" in conception, like Adobe and Microsoft too.

Wow, you couldn't be more wrong. You have to donate your rights to the code to the FSF. It's CHARITY. It's not different then giving the church money. You FORFEIT your properties rights to them.

>Anytime I'm better than you I undermine your "God given right" to take advantage of your property?

How the hell does pirating software someone else wrote make you better than them?! If you were really better then you'd write your own code that was superior.

>>1036198

>the government is gonna seize everything

>and then give it out for everyone

:^)

>>1032828 (OP)

McCarthy was the greatest anti-Communist and martyr to ever live in our nation. He genuinely studied communism and memorized every word of Das Kapital,

Communism is completely dependant on government and there's a reason why those who followed his footteps and actually read their literature say communist-fascist. Unlike national socialism which can but doesn't have to co-occur with fascism, communism needs always be carried by a centralized and fascist state.

Humans by nature are selfish and will try to act in their own gain even if it means being nice sometimes.

Open source is non-centralized; Communism is totally centralized.

>>1032828 (OP)

most commies are literally retarded and unable to think about concepts like authority or logic, all that exists to them is what is just or unjust, based on their particular disposition. everything else is just rationalization in how they are trying to fit things into their just/unjust paradigm. it's impossible to debate with these people because they unable or unwilling to accept basic logical concepts, or they oppose the purpose of debate itself, conceptually

>>1032967

based and redpilled

>>1032828 (OP)

>opensource is communism

Like communism in real life, it will eventually gets taken over by elites e.g. Microsoft, IBM, Redhat

>>1036198

>Communism is when the WORKERS own all the property

"... common ownership of the means of production ..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

noone owns anything beyond what the government think they need. unless you are a programmer you dont need a computer so they will take it. "oh, you are a programmer? but we already have enough programmers, you can work in the coalmine". so you end up in a coalmine. and you cant complain because what is important is the community as a whole, not you as an individual.

If anything, free software is ancom.

Free software can be understood as internally consistent with both communism and capitalism

>>1033036

And stallman is a fucking idiot. In a world of copyright, we still have companies only releasing binaries. But copyright makes it illegal for you to reverse compile the binaries, to study how they work, to make modifications, and to share the modified software with your friends. In other words, banning copyright would make the world close to Stallman's ideal, except without program sources. The world with copyright is, small pockets of free software notwithstanding, completely antithetical to everything Stallman stands for. Stallman is stupid enough that his idea of a perfect world will not come about until the rest of the world has been converted to a communist utopia as well. Until then, we should prefer a world without copyright.

>>1042421

meant for

>>1042289

>>1033036

>Stallman is against the abolishment of copyright

liar

>>1042251

> citing J. McCarthy

Now THAT is a good argument.

What about Free Software in terms of fascism? "If you have nothing to fear, you have nothing to hide"?

Whatcha sliding Chaim?

Why is there so much racism in this thread?

LOL, I wish I thought of doing that!

Heil Israel

DAILY REMINDER THAT THE MODS ARE COMPROMISED MOSSAD/CIA SHILLS

That post was made by a paid shill.

>>1032828 (OP)

Intellectual property is communism

>1032828

>How come communists try to appropriate free software and open source philosophy when they are actually the opposite?

I'm not a communist, but to be honest, most of the times I hear "Free software/Open source is communism" isn't from communists/leftists themselves, but rather from its opponents, in an attempt to discredit it by associating it with Communism.

Personally, I don't really believe Free software/Open source is communism. while it's no secret that Stallman himself has clearly leftist political views overall, the concept of FOSS itself is not tied to any particular ideology, and compatible with other systems too.

>>1032909

>He hunter

>Want to shoot deer

>Go to wilderness

>Start creeping around

>"OI FUCKFACE!!!"

>Huh?

>Gang of 20 guys run up to me with spears

>We Ugg tribe, who da fug are yooouuuu

>Have to explain why you're in someone else's territory so they don't cave your skull in

Tribal grounds have always existed. Believing you can wander any where let alone on your own is stupidly naive. A lone man in primitive times would be mugged or killed as an enemy. It's only very recently that roads have become safe enough to travel alone.

>>1032828 (OP)

The “open source is communism” is pushed by big tech companies to get Boomers who still think we live in the cold war to support them. Most communists don’t really care about if something is open source or not. What they care about is if Microsoft and Google are state owned or private companies.

>>1042251

>confusing communism for red fascism

Fuck, you are dumb.

The vast majority of people who call FLOSS "communism" are not themselves commies. It's almost always boomers and shitlibs who see the anti-capitalist and anti-consumerist optics of FLOSS and immediately assume it to be some sort of communist front.

It can't be denied that FLOSS (and tech in general) seems to attract a lot of either the far-left or the libertarian right. Because the far-left is far more likely than the libertarian right to loudly telegraph and enforce their beliefs, it gives the impression that FLOSS is far more left-leaning than it really is (though I suspect that the average does lean left somewhat).

>>1058257

People have the mistaken belief that free software is forbidden/untenable to make a profit. Based on this premise, people create free software because they want to oppose the system of selling proprietary software for a profit. The conclusion is that the ideal of free software is to oppose the profit of proprietary software by making it hard for proprietary software to make a profit when free software is around. People compare this idea to the ideals of communism which exists to oppose the abuses of capitalist power by confiscating the power of the capitalist.

I personally do not think this way. I actually believe that it is possible to make a profit selling free software. I believe that it is not antiethical to strive in making a profit when selling free software.

the people modern marxism targets is above middle class self professed intellectuals and trendy faggots that live in feminized environments.

these people enter tech mainly as a power-grab, all they know is how to copy and paste css and jquery snippets.

they're part of the long march through the institutions and depend entirely on men who write free software.

Look into "coding bootcamps", all the instructors fill their twitter with cultural marxist ideals rather than web design / tech commentary.

many of said schools are explicitly for women, lgbtqp2a, POC, BIPOC, run by cunt business women that depend on government funding or other dubious means.

I say writing free software enpowers communists, just as paying taxes enables mass indoctrination / immigration.

Guy's like ESR are thinking too much about how the USSR operated, being openly violent / coercive and targetting the working class.

The future of communism depends entirely on wealthy business woman getting rid of all low income jobs forcing people into debt to get "trained" to do clerical / managerial work for "living" wages while paying room and board to a communal facilty in the city where you need to maintain a social credit score by tolerating your room mate shooting up meth and getting anal fisted.

all labour will be done by mixed race illegals that are property of coorporations.

all the coersion will be covert and everyone will still praise democracy, diversity, and human rights because they'll still be allowed to watch netflix (in fact it will be mandatory to maintain a social credit score).

>>1058398

>>1058392

BSD cucks, enjoy your software patents and corporations stealing your code.

>>1058425

Good. That is the intention. Maybe one day we can come to a general consensus to not release closed-source software. I for one, would push for my company to release some of our older software as open source because it would allow for people in the open source community to use it to create better products for the community and to fix bugs that we do not have the ability to fix.

>>1058425

Enjoy eating Stallman's toejam, GNeUnuch.

>>1058427

> Maybe one day we can come to a general consensus to not release closed-source software.

Yeah, sure. When I'm looking at all this proprietary abandonware, I really doubt it, big corporations would rather throw away software, than give it for free, not to mention free as in freedom.

Corporations will never give something for free, because they live off taking away your money and making you dependent on them.

>>1058435

>I don't have a real argument, so I'll tell him about Stallman's toejam.

Go and modify open sore code on your Android dumbphone pajeet

>>1032841

>>1032883

based

>>1033231

>I am curious if there are any "pirates" who would defend this?

I'm happy to explain why file sharing isn't piracy. Piracy is the act of violence upon the high seas and it involves ships. Sharing a file without authority from the copyright holder is unauthorized file distribution and is not the same as piracy.

>>1058427

>companies will give something away for free if someone asks them to

>this is what BSD cucks actually believe

>>1058392

>literally giving megacorporations free labor

<superior licensing methods

FLOSS is actually national socialist.

>want your proprietary software to use my GPL code? too fucking bad.

>want your talmudic jewshit in my white ethnostate? too fucking bad.

that's like saying posting OC is communism

>>1032828 (OP)

>How come communists try to appropriate free software

Communists want software to belong to "the public" (which in practice means the government) instead of private parties. They say they are against big companies like MS, Google, Facebook owning programs, but what it also means is an individual person also cannot own what is on their PC. They want all your software and all your personal data to belong to "the people" (the state).

>>1058467

I approve of this message

>>1058259

>I personally do not think this way. I actually believe that it is possible to make a profit selling free software. I believe that it is not antiethical to strive in making a profit when selling free software.

What are examples of Free Software that has a price tag on it? All I can think of are some video games like Doom that had the source code to their engine released (usually years later, but still better than never).

>>1060359

The example is to charge the full cost of development to a single customer instead of charging a portion of the cost of development to many customers. If a particular program costs $20000 worth of effort to develop, then the program should be sold at no less than $20000 for a single customer.

>>1060359

with doom only the source of is "free" (GPL). art and other assets are still copyrighted so you aren't allowed to distribute them.