@Faket @freemo @emilis @SteveTheDragon friends, I have been loving this exchange. but I don't think any one system can claim sharing and openness. Capitalists promote open source if it's in their interest, communists promote it if it helps the greater good. syndicalists promote it because they don't believe in (intellectual) property. Anarchist, libertarians, authoritarians, democrats can all have their reasons for making software open source.
🇳🇱
There is a big chasm between "capitalists support it if..." and "The rules of capitalism permit it".. The only thing I have debated about is what each government allows in its purest form, not what its supporters like.
The fact is open source in its current form (that is the creator gets to pick one of countless licenses each with different rules anywhere from proprietary to public domain and everything in between).. well that cant even exist in a pure communism as it implies the original creator had ownership to give away in the first place.
Same with the syndicalists, you cant have open source in the form we know it if we dont start with ownership. So of all the things listed capitalism is literally the only one where open-source can exist at all.
@freemo @Faket @emilis @SteveTheDragon and those three you listed are economic systems, not systems of governance. As such I'm not sure they can 'permit' anything.
@freemo @pants @Faket @SteveTheDragon On just a technical level. Pragmatically, if we assume communism can even exist and would work as Marx described, software would be practically open source anyway in that scenario. I don’t see any benefit to arguing on technicalities.