I’ve seen so much confusion between the two, at first I thought it was trolls, but it’s so consistent that I’ve begun to wonder if they actually don’t understand.
I’ve seen so much confusion between the two, at first I thought it was trolls, but it’s so consistent that I’ve begun to wonder if they actually don’t understand.
The initial idea was because companies distributed the source code along with the machine code because machine code didn’t work across diverse machines. People would modify the source code to add features and send it back to the original company who would then add it in.
It was a capitalist thing, it was all voluntary. Communism is all about forcing people.
Unless you think IBM is communist.
I see your confusion, I just said FOSS and I should have said FOSS movement to be more clear. Double-checking myself shows that the FOSS orgs tend to be apolitical, so I should have instead said compatible with communist views.
You state that communism is all about forcing people, however communism is defined as a stateless classless society. How would you force people in such a situation?
IBM is most certainly capitalist, they just realized they could benefit from open source software once they fell behind MS. Being able to share development costs is still beneficial in a capitalist economy, even if you don’t privately own the end product. Just like how sharing the cost of healthcare can be beneficial for the social welfare.