"Is open source still a grassroots social movement made up of idealistic underdogs trying to revolutionize an amoral industry? Or has it become a cloak used by IT vendors large and small to disguise ruthless and self-serving behavior? Some observers argue it's the latter. Despite occasional protests from old-timers - the heated backlash against the Microsoft-Novell détente, for example - open source has become so co-opted by mainstream IT, so transformed by 'accidental open sourcers' simply looking for a better business model, that it's lost its cherished moral edge."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-10-02
Off-topic to some extent yes. But not completely.
Libertarianism (or ultra liberalism) is a political ideology as well as an economical model (then known as anarcho-capitalism).
Socialism is a political ideology. As an ecomomical model it is known as plan-economy. It doesn't work as a long-term model, but is useful during crisis or war-time.
There is no such things as left libetarians. It's an oxymoron like Libertarian Socialism. It's a name invented to give the oppressing Socialism a freedom-sounding name.
But yes, quite OT.
Member since:2005-07-02
Socialism is a political ideology. As an ecomomical model it is known as plan-economy. It doesn't work as a long-term model, but is useful during crisis or war-time.
Nope. Socialism is an economical model...of course, imposing this economical model *is* a political undertaking.
There is no such things as left libetarians.
Yes there is. One form of it is called anarcho-syndicalism.
I should know, I'm a libertarian leftist myself...
It's a name invented to give the oppressing Socialism a freedom-sounding name.
Socialism isn't oppressive if it is done in a democratic way. One can argue that Capitalism *is* oppressive if you don't happen to have any capital...
I know we won't agree on this, we've had this debate before, so there's no need to continue in this off-topic threadjack. I respect your opinions, though, even if I don't share them...I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. :-)
Member since:2006-12-28
Anarcho-capitalism is actually an oxymoron. Ask any Anarchist what she thinks of capitalism and she will sum it up in one word, oppression.
Check out http://www.anarchistfaq.org
Socialism in any form is economical. In fact, it cannot be any other way. The only time that changes is when it is implemented by the state. When the state implements anything, it becomes political.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_economics
Most Anarchist are socialist. The rare few that are not believe in a barter economy only. Capitalism is and always will be incompatible with Anarchy. Even Anarcho-syndicalism is opposed to capitalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism
It's unbelievable what some people will palm off as truth.
Member since:
2005-07-02
Guys, this is getting quite off-topic...if you don't want to be moderated down, keep the fallacious left/right analogies out of this.
The truth is that FLOSS is *neither* left or right, though it is certainly libertarian in nature (libertarian is a political philosophy, while capitalism/socialism are economical models). That's why you can have both Right Libertarians (such as ESR) and Left Libertarians (which I suspect RMS of being) pushing for FLOSS. You can also have FLOSS being pushed by capitalist corporations (such as IBM) and socialist states (such as Cuba).
And there are many intellectuals that support Capitalism. And many intellectuals attack Open Source - especially Marxist Intellectuals (they really don't like the GPL - they only like licenses that do not allow for commercial distribution).
Marxism isn't opposed to commerce. In fact, some variants (such as Trotskyism) were built around the idea of preserving some form of private property. What Marxism criticizes is the alienation of labor from the laborers, in other hands the fact that the means of production (the capital) are solely in the hands of capitalists, as opposed to those who actually produce the wealth (the laborers).
Again, this is all off-topic.
Edited 2007-02-19 21:31