Open Source/Free Software, is it Socialism?

[KneeLess]

We've almost all heard about Linux and how it's free. Free, you ask? How can something be free? How much merchandise do I have to buy before I can use it, really? What? No tricks? It really is free? Of course. Well, free as in freedom. True most (almost 95%) of the software for Linux is free, and you can even change the program and give it to your friends, with no penalties. Okay, free is nice. But what are these people getting in return for their work on Linux? Nothing, really. The forward moving of a movement perhaps. For the cause I guess. Let me explain a bit to you about the GNU (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) Community and why they work for free.

Have you ever been part of a volunteer organization? One that you really liked? Maybe not. But imagine your one of your favorite hobbies, that you could do with a bunch of people and actually help other people. Of course you'd help right? Same idea. These people work on GNU/Linux (as it's known, visit the GNU website for more information) because they want to. They get no money, no payment, nothing. Yet they strive on. Even I want to help the cause. Currently I'm writing a poetry generator for us non-creative types, and I hope to call it GNU Poet. I'll recieve no payment of any kind for anyone using it, so why do I want to help? I guess you could say I like the idea of free as in freedom. I guess you could say I like the feel of helping a cause. Some call it anti-capitalism. Some go as far as to say it's socialist/communist. They do share some similarities, like the idea of working, just because.

I guess it's an interesting idea. Tens of thousands of people working for a single cause for the single fact that they want to. No payment at all. It goes agaisnt many human nature theories, "humans are greedy", "humans are greedy because of society", etc. Imagine all of America, going to work, because they love America. They come home with no money in their pocket. They go back to work and do it again, and are very happy to do so.

So is Linus Torvalds a communist?

[Apokalupsis]

The hardware that Linux runs on, is not free. Large group programs like this are fun of course...but to extend it into the practical world...just doesn't work. It's not even a possibility (that we all work for free). And not because "that's just the way it is"...but because it can't work...it's an impossibility. Let's say that the US was a closed system...we have no external dangers, and no need of assistance in any shape, manner or form from other nations. It STILL is an impossibility.

People are not equal in their abilities, skills, or mental capacities. Those who are more skilled, are typically rewarded more (usually in the form of higher pay if we are sticking to the work field). Some careers require 80+ hours a week, while others under 20. What is going to be the mechanism for motivation?

Have you seen the movie The Beach?

[sjjs]

Those who are more skilled, are typically rewarded more (usually in the form of higher pay if we are sticking to the work field).

Depends what kind of skill you're talking about. In our society we reward celebrity and shock rather than intelligence and manual skill. Think Pamela Anderson (I do) and a nurse, a highly skilled cabinet maker, a struggling author, a teacher, a football player.

Perhaps the only skill we reward is the skill of making money without necessarily benefiting anyone but oneself.

[Apokalupsis]

That is because the system is created in such a way that allows easy "reward" for entertainers. It's a collective pay system. Very simplistic explanation: Individually, we may "pay" Peyton Manning $50-$250 per game in as far as that is the reason we personally go to see the game. However, when a lot of people chip in just a little, a very large "pot" accumulates. After obvious expenditures, the rest goes to who draws in the crowd, as it should.

In order for this to be done for skill that is not considered entertainment (such as medical professionals, law enforcement, science, etc...), it would take a lot of people "chipping in a little" to create the larger pot. When we start taking more from people, instead of allowing them to give as they choose (pay for what they want and need), we cease being a capitalist society, and start moving towards socialism.

It's ironic that Pamela is paid more than a brain surgeon...but not unfair. The entertainment industry is unlike any other industry in the world. It isn't an accurate comparison to use it vs the medical industry. The ONLY way to make it accurate, would be to remove that freedom of collective funding. But by doing so, entertainment value as a whole goes down the tube.

[KneeLess]

Let's take this back to the computer world. There are a few things you buy when you buy a piece of proprietary software: Skilled Worker's Time, Printed Manuals, and Tech Service. Of which the latter two are mostly optional. So what you're buying is basically a skilled worker's time and energy. Also, let's imagine that the computer industry is the only type of industry. Basically it breaks down to what you like better free or not so free. Could this drive the computer industry (software wise) to basically a non-profit, and therefore no jobs, industry?