Had some related thoughts I wrote about here https://justiceinternationale.com/articles/2020-12-02-we-must-own-our-tools/
this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2023
25 points (93.1% liked)
Technology
151 readers
1 users here now
A tech news sub for communists
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
To be honest, after 20+ years of using Linux and working in tech I've concluded it is not the openness of the tech that matters, but the governance of the providers. I've been tinkering with running a little ISP doing email, nextcloud hosting, etc, and running it as a cooperative.
That's to say that the socialist thing is public ownership, and the nearest we can come to that is coops, at the moment. Governing provision is much more interesting on the basis that it enables people who aren't terminally online to make good choices.
I think so. Moreover, I think doing FOSS is waste of energy and time under capitalism. If it will be less developed, almost nobody will use it. If it will be competitive to comercial products, it will be seized by capitalists in some way. Why reinvent the wheel, when we can pirate something? It hurts companies the most. And yes, the most important factor is who owns the software code, big data and the like. This should be publicly owned. Making FOSS under capitalism is wasteful since this time and energy can be better used to fight capitalism by other means. Unless someone does it for fun as a hobby.
We are slowly transitioning to FOSS (maybe just open source), ironically it's big tech itself the one sponsoring the transition. Not out of goodwill but because it's cheaper and more efficient to mantain and develop open source code.
At least for 'mainstream' computing. Specialized industry software is decades behind and might never become open source.
Not out of goodwill but because it’s cheaper and more efficient to mantain and develop open source code.
And then you have the companies that use open source throughout their product but don't contribute upstream at all or even close source and only use permissively licensed open source. Which is less great 😢
Frankly I'm hesitant about FOSS as a movement these days. It has a libertarian bent a mile wide (actually giving your license clauses that stop people from doing harm with your software in various ways makes it "no longer free"), is poorly applicable to the actual user, and doesn't care about anything other than itself (free software should be intersectional but the FSF continues to champion and cater to white men and sex pests)
Libertarians want proprietary. Libertarians believe the highest form of human to be the scammer. FOSS people don't scam. FOSS isn't libertarian.
Libertarians open source (not free) because it ties into their idealistic notion of how individual freedom is true freedom. In the end software with open source licenses like MIT end up being free high-skill labour for megacorporations who don't give back, neither in terms of financial support nor code changes.
Libertarians love both proprietary and non-free open source licenses for this reason.
There are a lot of liberals and libertarians involved in FOSS, to the point where some FOSS and FOSS-adjacent media (ie 'Slashdot') is practically unreadable. Even the most (in)famous FOSS advocate, Richard Stallman, has appeared on Infowars and is reportedly a sex pest. But there are comrades involved in FOSS too, and there are obvious benefits from avoiding corpo lock-in and corpo spyware (what they call 'telemetry'), so... there's that.
Stallman definitely a weird dude but his contribution to FOSS is undeniable. Thanks to the GNU project we have free software.
Richard Stallman, has appeared on Infowars and is reportedly a sex pest.
He was kicked out of MIT for defending Epstein so yeah. Classic libertarian.
This seems probable but do you have a source for this? Last time I read he was "cancelled" for being weird to his colleagues especially women.
Here's the first link I found. This was after a long history of publicly and internally making similar comments. I've heard rumors of that type of behavior but I don't know if anyone ever publicly came forward.
Honestly kind of surprised that people here are defending him.
I remember it now. The enitrely willingly part reignited the memory. Yeah this is unacceptable.
I think he was cancelled by ableist people. If I would leave my home, I would also be seen as "weird" by neurotypical people.
Doubt it honestly
Besides how fucked up that is, that is the quintessence of "weird hill to die on".
He also reportedly told female students he'd kill himself if they don't go out with him and had a mattress in his office specifically for the insinuation women could come and have sex with him on it. As far as I'm concerned he shouldn't be trusted with the FOSS movement at all, much less be an idolized leader within it.
Well the mattress was because he lived in his office. But yeah I've heard similar things. Really don't think you gotta hand it to him like some commentators do. Kind of a disgrace that the FSF brought him back
Stallman is pretty much one of us, actually. He has a relationship with Cuba, opposes US sanctions, and literally invented copyleft licensing.
Use the search bar on his site for "Cuba": https://stallman.org/
He at least supports Julian Assange, but he supports many other causes of US imperialism (in the first political note on his website as of now, he claims that Russia blew up the dam), supported the invasion of Afghanistan, and called the Chinese population brainwashed slaves. I would consider him a slightly more enlightened radlib if anything.
He can't be a libertarian because he does not worship money or scamming. Also, Microsoft dug through his whole life to find something to discredit him and if this completely blown-up story is the worst thing they found... well they could probably find worse things in the history of more than half of americans.
There are definitely way too many questionable individuals in the movement but it's definitely a thing where everyones interests align.
view more: next ›