Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

[News] Why Free Software is Capitalism, Prevents Disrimination

Hash: SHA1

Bruce Perens: Is Open Source Capitalist or Communist?

,----[ Quote ]
| The Linux distribution companies may or may not participate significantly in 
| the Open Source projects whose work they distribute. All three of the above 
| development paradigms - infrastructure, non-profit, or direct commercial, 
| apply to the software packaged by the Red Hat, Canonical, and Novell.zuen 
| toilet    
| The Mozilla Foundation is another interesting exception. Even though they're 
| not operated for profit, they have gotten much of their funding from Google, 
| who has an obvious interest in having good web browsers for their service 
| business and doesn't want Microsoft or Apple to dominate the web. So, I'd put 
| them in the "infrastructure" rather than "non-profit" category.     


The Open Source Community, the Worldwide Academy of Programming, Does Not

,----[ Quote ]
| That would be the Open Source Community, the worldwide community of 
| programmers and others who have created what I call the “Open Source 
| Artifact,” an outstanding collection of software resulting from decades of 
| open collaboration. All of it is available at no cost, and I can think of no 
| other community, save science or medicine, that has made such a contribution.    



Corporate investment the price of Linux's freedom

,----[ Quote ]
| But now it seems that every corporation has its finger in the open source
| pie, and every long standing free software developer has been employed by a
| multi-billion dollar company to work on the project of his or her choice.
| This change began to happen during the late nineties, prior to Red Hat's $6
| billion flotation on the NASDAQ, but became truly significant when IBM
| announced its commitment to Linux in December 2000.


What is an “Open Source Company?” The Billion Dollar Question

,----[ Quote ]
| My poster child for this is, predictably, Google. As I discussed last year, I
| consider Google to be an “open source business” because the business is
| effectively built on open source. True, its software is no more open than,
| say, the pieces of the IBM portfolio that embed the Apache HTTP server, but
| it’s undeniable that Google is a business that is built on, with and from
| open source software. And while some will undoubtedly challenge their side of
| the give and take equation, given their contributions from Summer of Code to
| Mark Callaghan’s MySQL patches I find it hard to argue that they are not
| benefiting a variety of communities.


Free Is Not Socialism

,----[ Quote ]
| I've had a browser open with a two part series from the site "e-consultancy"
| for the better part of a month, debating whether or not it's even worth going
| through this battle again -- but it seems worth it to clear up some serious
| misconceptions. The first article decries "digital socialism" and the second
| part goes after the "tyranny of the consumer." This, by itself, seems
| contradictory. The capitalist free market works thanks to the tyranny of the
| consumer. That is, the entire reason why the free market works is because
| consumers have power to move to a competitor -- and that keeps producers
| in-line. Complaining about consumers getting their way is a rejection of
| capitalism and the free market, not support for it.

Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index