The article itself is a bit of a train-wreck, but hopefully it can provide some insight for "open source" people to how they are perceived, if the article is anything to go by.<p>- You work for free, and <i>should</i> work for free.<p>- You sharing your programming is equated with sharing whatever non-sense on Flickr and Twitter.<p>- Collective action and sharing is always positive, even if it erodes privacy and strictly gains commercial 3rd parties, because it's "culture".<p>In short, your ideals and ideas are being co-opted by large businesses and pundits, and in return you get to be part of "a movement" that might not benefit you.<p>Please be aware of that when large corporations "warm up" towards open source, or when pundits proclaim that, in effect, you should be more "pragmatic" and go with the flow or miss out on the revolution.<p>In contrast, Free Software, even if considered crusty and old-fashioned, is about one thing: respecting the freedoms of users.<p>That single thing can facilitate making great, fun communities; it can create a solid basis to boost commerce and enhance capitalism; it can serve to prop up your libertarian Utopia. It can help with all these things and many more, but it <i>is</i> none of these things.
This article misses so many points. It's wrong about what socialism is. It's wrong about how online communities work. It's wrong about who free software / free culture supporters are (or maybe it adopts a very US-centric view while claiming a worldwide truth). It's kind of sad, I was really expecting it to be interesting.
The only way socialism works to describe open source and free software is if you try to force political or economic terms onto something like software development.<p>Graffiti isn't socialist just because it's done gratis and relatively collectively. In fact, it could be considered as capitalist because it's essentially advertising (in many cases). Donation-based museums aren't socialist because they offer free entry, they're still run by a small, exclusive group and have essentially decided on a different business model.<p>Likewise, open source and free software isn't necessarily "socialist", and it may not even necessarily be collectivist. Essentially, open source software gives up state protections and adds limitations of its own. In that sense, I'd argue that open source and free software are more laissez-faire than collectivist, since their license terms are often what you'd get if there were no government providing copyright protections (especially for liberal licenses like MIT).<p>Any software project could be collectivist if it chooses, but that has more to do with the organization governing maintainence of the codebase than the license it uses. For example, RedHat is very centralized and commercial and Debian is very democratic, yet they both use the same GPL license. Likewise, the Go project is very centralised and the Rust project is a bit more Democratic, yet they both use liberal licenses.<p>So no, socialism is not a good word to describe open source or free software licenses or even the community as a whole, though it could be a decent term for specific projects.
> "I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."<p>"Socialism" is notoriously challenging to define, but you can't have it mean whatever you want it to mean.
To everyone who is saying "that is not socialism"<p>* Please talk to the US Republican Part and tell them to stop lying.<p>When someone (especially a Democrat) brings up universal healthcare, the GOP says "<i>that's socialism!</i>". When free tuition is brought up: "<i>that's socialism!</i>". Universal daycare: "<i>that's socialism!</i>". Carbon pricing: "<i>socialism!</i>". Higher taxes on upper income to pay for social programs: "<i>socialism!</i>".<p>The GOP has thrown the word "socialism" around as a boogeyman to the point that it is now meaningless in the US:<p>* <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/defining-socialism-down" rel="nofollow">https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/defining-s...</a><p>This isn't the 1950s anymore.<p>The problem is <i>not</i> with the author's (Kevin Kelly [1]) use of the word, nor necessarily with the policies that are being proposed by some (left-leaning) politicians, but with the fact that the GOP (as a party) does not participate in US politics in good faith.<p>* [1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Kelly_(editor)" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Kelly_(editor)</a><p>Edit: Case in point, McConnell called granting statehood to D.C. and Puerto Rico “full bore socialism” in a Fox News interview just this week:<p>* <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mitch-mcconnell-dem-d-c-statehood-full-bore-socialism" rel="nofollow">https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mitch-mcconnell-dem-d-c-sta...</a>
While I give away 100% of the stuff on my website for free because I like to help people, it is NOT socialism.<p>I could not live off my website being free, I have a day job.<p>And as the author says, open source advocates tend to be more libertarian.<p>And also as the author said, using 'socialism' will make people cringe. Yes, because the author is trying very hard to find 'digital' socialism.