it's free software ideologically comunism?
communism is a much more complicated and involved ideology than free software.
free software may be consistent with communism, but then so is public education and state-maintained roads.
Yes, and that's not a bad thing.
>>54178314
more simpson comunists memes pls.
>>54178069
>communism
>complicated
Gibs me dat!
>>54178422
That's anarchism
>>54179150
there's any diference?
Free as in Freedom.
Proprietary software is like living under a totalitarian regime where the user has no control on what he wants to do with the software he has purchased, he can only do what the state tells him to do. The critique of 'you just want free software cheapass!' is a red herring designed to distract you from the real issues, namely privacy and freedom.
Communism is a good thing, anon.
If you don't think so then you are a fascist and should go back to >>>/pol/
>>54178056
No, an economic system is much more complex than the concept of Free Software.
Communism forces you to share.
Free software encourages you to share.
>Free as in Freedom
No.
It's not related to democracy or communism, it's about human rights.
>>54179199
not to retarded people.
so as far as you're concerned, no.
>>54178056
Yes. In communism, there is no private property. In GPLv3, there is no private code.
>>54179801
>>54179808
Fucking gay.
>>54179801
GPLv3 forces everyone who edits the software to share it you fucking faggot liar.
>>54178314
>>54179199
>>54179615
>>54179801
>>54179835
Communism does not work and will never work.
Every major country is embracing Capitalism, maybe in your dreams a magical communist utopia will occur though.
Economic ideologies evolve out of scarcity of goods. We need ideologies and laws to dictate property because there is a finite amount of property on earth.
There is no scarcity when talking about software though. Traditional economic discussions don't apply because you're usimg a fundamentally different foundation.
>>54179850
If you choose to license your software under the GPL license, nobody force you to join the free software movement.
>>54178056
freedom means the freedom for someone to make proprietary software and the freedom for me to steal that software
i'm part of the free market taking care of itself
>>54178056
No, communism makes sense. Free software doesn't.
>>54179858
>magical utopia
it's called venezuela anon.
>Is the right to bear arms ideologically anarchism?
>Is the right to free speech ideologically democracy?
>Is the right to a fair trial ideologically communism?
No
>>54179863
Software still requires storage which is finite.
>>54179876
>comunism make sense
wut
>>54179870
No you fucking faggot liar.
If you edit GPLv3 licensed software you have to publish under GPLv3, that's the whole fucking point. Learn to read. This was implied in my previous post.
>>54179615
straight up, everything the free software movement stands for is ideologically left, and it's tragic how the techno-libertarian types have been convinced so thoroughly by identity politics that they cannot reconcile this with their cuck meme
comunism created millions of starving farmers.
free software created millions of starving programmers.
any diference?
>>54179858
The communist revolution is coming and there's nothing you conservacucks can do about it :)
>>54179923
Communism died in the 90s and there's nothing you SJWs can do about it.
>>54179883
You would still have to pay for server costs and network infrastructure, but the code itself has no inherent value. Just like if we could make an infinite amount of food, the food would be free but the distribution would still cost money.
>>54179933
The left is only growing stronger and soon the revolution will occur. And you anti "SJWs" will be utterly powerless :)
>>54179944
Capitalism is totally uncontested, labour unions are weaker than ever, and socialism is almost extinct. You are delusional. Just because you and some commie faggots like to talk about how gay you are on your college campus with your Marxist kike professors, doesn't mean communism isn't dead.
Neo-liberalism is dominant and here to stay.
>>54179905
A lot of libertarians don't belive ip is real property therefore capitalism doesn't apply. Property and goods are real, ip is an artificial construct defined by the state.
>>54179990
If they believe that, then they don't believe in free software either.
>>54179968
Conservacucks are threatening the very fabric of human civilization. Banning all people of a certain religion from entering the country legally. Banning gay marriage, banning trans rights, banning welfare.
These things will not stand and if you don't think there is a vicious reaction going on in response to these disgusting things right now, you are delusional.
If Trump wins, this will be the catalyst for the revolution. And conservacucks will beg for the days when they could freely spew their hatred, intolerance, and vitriol without being held accountable.
>>54179923
I for one cannot wait
>>54180034
That's identity politics and faggotry, which has nothing to do with socialism and communism you fucking retard.
>>54180055
It has to do with leftism.
>>54180067
This thread isn't about leftism you retard. It's about free software and communism.
>>54180079
Communism is leftism.
>>54180102
No it is not you fucking retard. Communism is a subset of leftism.
>>54180118
>le calling one thing by the category it fits into is saying the entire category is the one thing meme
Fucking pedant.
>>54180128
Retard.
>>54178056
>it's free software ideologically comunism?
go to 1.04.20 for an answer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k84FMc1GF8M
>>54180147
Stupid head.
>>54179900
>fucking faggot liar.
Keyboard Tourette's?
>If you edit GPLv3 licensed software you have to publish under GPLv3, that's the whole fucking point.
Absolutely untrue.
Try reading the license.
>>54180200
It's totally true. Why do you think there are no proprietary forks of GNU shit? Fucking commies.
>>54180215
If I edit GPLv3 software, I do not necessarily have to publish my modified version.
>>54178056
not on any existant hardware
>>54180229
Oh you fucking fag, then what the fuck is the point of editing it in the commercial sense? This thread is about communism and free software. If you're just going to keep it on a disk in your mom's basement then it's not part of the economy and then it's not relevant to OP's point.
Fucking retard.
>>54178056
Free software (in the monetary sense) is a convenient by product of open source software.
Think about it this way, intellectual property and copyright law is basically like the church telling you to fuck off to jail with your printing press and your illegal gutenberg bible copies.
>>54180260
>Think about it this way, intellectual property and copyright law is basically like the church telling you to fuck off to jail with your printing press and your illegal gutenberg bible copies.
Except it's nothing like that at all, and IP is the only reason people bother printing books in the first place.
>>54178056
no because its optional
>>54180250
>fucking fag
>Fucking retard
You really need to work on the whole "insulting people" thing. Or at least introduce some variety.
I just wanted to point out that >>54179850
>GPLv3 forces everyone who edits the software to share it
is wrong.
>>54180270
People print books for monetary benefit. There's demand for physical copies of written material like bibles and reference guides. For reading material that no one gives a shit if it's in paper or digital form, IP only acts as an implement to dissuade the proliferation of "illegal copies". The concept of IP is nothing more than governmental bullshit.
>>54180345
No faggot, it's true, because publishing was implied by the context of my comment. And even if you edit code and never publish it, it's still GPLv3 because you can't change the license, so you're full of shit.
>>54180371
Publishers can only publish what they have the right to publish. Why do you not know this? You have to be at least 18 to post here.
>>54180395
>>>/intl/
>>54180371
>governmental bullshit.
IP is something that is a civil issue, copyright is something that companies push.
The very companies that started from ignoring copyright are the ones pushing for it.
>>54180379
>Publishers can only publish what they have the right to publish.
There's nothing prohibiting Muhammed in Shitfuckistan from making copies of Managerial Accounting II from McGrawHIll.
>>54180379
>faggot
Hey, that's some progress! You dropped the "fucking"!
>publishing was implied by the context of my comment
Let's take a look at the context:
>>54178056
>it's free software ideologically comunism?
>>54179801
>Free software encourages you to share.
>>54179850
>GPLv3 forces everyone who edits the software to share it you fucking faggot liar.
Clearly, neither you nor any previous poster mentioned publishing.
>And even if you edit code and never publish it, it's still GPLv3 because you can't change the license
Not sure where this came from -- I never claimed you could change the license.
No, it's libertarianism.
>>54180458
you have not addressed any of there points all you did was greentext half the post.
>>54180482
They didn't even have a point, bro
>>54178056
software released under GPL3 sure as shit is
>>54180458
If you share code or distribute code have to license it, you fucking retard. Thanks for proving my point. Idiot.
>>54178056
No. Free software says nothing about the distribution of capital in society.
>>54179900
Then dont edit GPLv3 licensed software?
I don't know OP. I don't give a fuck about these sociopolitical hierarchies. I'm more interested in memorizing the Periodic Table than this shit.
In fact, i think that's exactly what i will do now while you faggots are discussing flawed ideologies run by nations who are failing in different ways because ideology ain't worth shit when a Human is operating it and twisting it.
Free Software demands four freedom.
Freedom to run software for any reason.
Freedom to study(an open code is a necessarily implied) how the software works and change it however you want it.
Freedom to give away the software to others.
Freedom to give away the software that you modified to others.
All four freedom is needed for a free software. In some ways, this is more like the Bill of Rights than communism. With the guarantee of the four freedoms.
communism isn't bad and it has nothing to do with stupid soviet commies who used it like a populist thing
Comminism is forced. Free software is optional.
>>54179801
>>54181566
This. Saying free software is communism is kind of like saying charity is communism. And even that's totally ignoring the many ways FOS is being monetised.
>>54178056
More like anarchism. Depends on the license though.
>>54182006
>More like anarchism.
In that case it's capitalist anarchism. Since free software isn't forced, but is produced as an alternative to paid software by the private sector (capitalism), and creates chaos to the proprietary people since their profits are reduced by the contenders (anarchism).
>>54180455
Third world here, can confirm, any copy shop will print you a shitty black and white copy of any book you want for something like 1¢/page.
>>54181566
>>54181609
all of these things are actually forced
all (historic) forms of the social contract have involved the coerced inclusion of people, either through proximity and dominion or through merely being born into a family structure that is controlled by the highest level authority
communism, at its most conceptual, mostly refers to the means of production being taken from capitalists (people who, during the industrial revolution, were able to make enough profits off the sudden boom in production to control these centers and hire random bumfucks) and distributed amongst the masses
every "communist" mind has taken this in a bit of a different direction
for some it meant that a global revolution was necessary to transition from the organization of nation states that emerged after the peace of westphalia (lenin, trotsky), for others it was just an ideological tool to consolidate power and centralize authority (mao, kim)
dunno much about free software, but i think that the guidelines it places, as mentioned by >>54181512
make it still pretty "forced" in the same way that the bill of rights is "forced"
it is an interesting thought to consider what a state of nature might be for the digital world, esp as vr comes into play
The way my father explained socialism (we don't call it Communism) is that from the moment you're born you are limited by the system in how high you can ascend and how low you can fall (omitting any special relation your family may have with those in the party).
Free software is quite the opposite, it's anarchy constructed around the concept of freedom.
>>54178069
Public education and state maintained roads are more Socialism than Communism.
>>54179858
Capitalism does not work and never will work, either.
All the systems don't work, that's the human flaw. The only way to create a system that doesn't eventually fuck itself is to mix and match and continue to evolve over time as people find new and ever-more complex ways to game the system.
GPLv3+ is communism
BSD/MIT is freedom
>>54179835
Unless you choose not to distribute it, then it can stay private.
>>54183416
>communism using law used too screw/jew people are use to force them to share when they attempt to steal a code
>>54182034
>comparing freedom to pricing
Bro
>>54181609
>Contributing according to ability and taking according to need
>Not communism
>>54178056
If you mean free software as in the open source license - it's more mutualist than communist.
If you mean free software without Stallman's political flavour it's perfectly normal thing and the only person who can find something wrong in it is some bureaucrat or corpowhore that absolutely can't understand how can normal average people do something productive without being steered from above(bureaucrat) or offered to buy something by the big boys™(corpowhore)
>>54180067
>It has to do with leftism.
If you define leftism from reactionary point of view(not neo-reactionary, you spineless cuck), then yes, it is leftist.
Identity politics are individualist. Communism is collectivist. What majority of people understand as leftism is collectivist(but obviously the left-centre-right categories are useless if we go deep down into some specific issue).
