this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2026
146 points (96.2% liked)

Free and Open Source Software

22050 readers
446 users here now

If it's free and open source and it's also software, it can be discussed here. Subcommunity of Technology.


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

This thought came to me in the shower today. Open source checks most of the boxes. It is a collaborative, worker owned (develloper-owned) project, that tries to flatten hierarchy. Especially if you look at something like Debian ), which really tries to have a bottom-up structure.
Of course, there are exceptions, considering there are a lot of corporate open-source projects, that are not democratically maintained and clearly only serve the interest of the company, who created it (like chromium for example).
So I am mainly talking about community-oriented FOSS projects here.
And if you were to agree with my statement, would you say that developing FOSS software is advancing the goals of the anarchist / communist project, because it is laying the groundwork infrastructure needed for a new kind of economy and society?
Thought this could be an interesting discussion!

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] wrinkle2409@lemmy.cafe 1 points 21 minutes ago

I'm definitively printing this and putting it on my wall

I had the same exact thought after Steve balmer called it communist cancer, but then I came to a conclusion. Open source, and fair source software is communist, but free software is not. Free is as freedom and not price. You can make money off of it, but why is it different than OSS. The difference is that Free software protects the user's rights as opposed to OSS. Protecting the user's rights and freedoms is important.

[–] Ice@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 hour ago

I do not.

FOSS is the natural conclusion of public code having a negligible cost to supply once it has been produced. Ideally it takes IP out of the equation and allocates compensation towards development rather than rent extraction.

FOSS is a question of centralization & authority vs decentralization & freedom.

[–] OneRedFox@beehaw.org 2 points 2 hours ago

Yes. It is pretty much exactly how we would do software development.

[–] sanzky@beehaw.org 7 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

I think FOSS enable those kind of communities but I don’t think FOSS as a concept is any of those things. those communities could equally work with a non FOSS license (eg one that prevents commercial use or a license that allow usage only by members of a specific community). They uses existing licenses because they go momentum and have legal precedents that allows people to defend their rights.

Most FOSS licenses were specifically designed to allow profiting from the wok of others, even the GPL. Just see how many billion dollar companies (think Azure, AWS, etc) profit from projects without giving anything back.

[–] Mynameisallen@lemmy.zip 27 points 6 hours ago

Yes, as an anarchist I regularly point to FOSS as a plausible example of it working

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 47 points 6 hours ago

Honestly, yes, I think it's one of the best examples of anarchism in action the world has ever seen. And an especially pertinent example to point out to those who'd say things like, "Why would anyone do work or innovate without a profit motive?" Lots of good and innovative software, made without any profit incentive by a collective of people who are working on it just because they want to and they enjoy it.

[–] Kirk@startrek.website 15 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (2 children)

Cory Doctorow has a novel "Walkaway" which is basically "what if society but FOSS". It's really good!

To answer your question, while it has a lot in common with anarchism I don't think anyone benefits from trying to fit it into a predefined political box. It's something new.

[–] eleijeep@piefed.social 2 points 3 hours ago

It's a great book, and very relevant.

[–] DeckPacker@piefed.blahaj.zone 5 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

Wow, I didn't think, I would get such an interesting book recommendation out of this. Thank you so much!

[–] cecilkorik@piefed.ca 1 points 55 minutes ago

Cory Doctorow is prolific and has written a ton of other great and highly interesting stuff as well. He's a very intelligent fellow.

[–] Kirk@startrek.website 5 points 5 hours ago

My pleasure! It kind of reminds me of Snow Crash in that it's really fun and adventurous but also made me think deep thoughts.

[–] PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S@lemmy.sdf.org 15 points 5 hours ago

Open source is not literally communism, but I do think it's one of the best examples to demonstrate that anarcho-communism is plausible.

[–] Wildmimic@anarchist.nexus 4 points 4 hours ago

I think it's more of a socialist mindset that is spreading with FOSS, because it focuses it's workings on the common good, Most FOSS projects can be named socialist by nature; they encourage working together to create something bigger, something that doesn't let the small guy fall through the created network. I believe a lot of anarchistic workings are socialist at their core, and FOSS is an embodiment of these workings.

[–] rimu@piefed.social 14 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Only if you use GPL, not MIT.

[–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (2 children)

I think MIT is anarchistic license. You can do whatever the fuck you want with it, but for this shit to work for both of us, you really should collaborate

Further, GPL relies on enforcement from an authority on copyrights, which is exactly the opposite of what anarchists suggest

[–] rimu@piefed.social 10 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Yes although what tends to happen is the capitalists just take MIT licenced code and make bank off it.

This is all moot now that LLMs can launder the code anyway.

[–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 5 hours ago

Yeah we do live in a capitalist world

[–] matsdis@piefed.social 4 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

You obviously want WTFPL instead of MIT for that.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] its_kim_love@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

It can definitely be a form of praxis.

[–] DeckPacker@piefed.blahaj.zone 7 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Sorry for being a bit of an idiot, but what is praxis?

[–] its_kim_love@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

The textbook definition would be the application of theory to action. It's basically leftist slang for putting the theories of socialism/communism/humanism into practice in a real way.

[–] DeckPacker@piefed.blahaj.zone 5 points 6 hours ago

Alright, thanks ;)

[–] ati@piefed.social 11 points 6 hours ago

It's an observation of Marx, I think correct, that society organises in a manner aligned around the means of production. Agrarian -> feudal, industrial -> capitalist etc. I think the essential distinguishing feature of software vs capital goods is that software can be copied without the loss of the original. Hence I think the concept of ownership fails and the mode of production becomes anarchist.

[–] slacktoid@lemmy.ml 12 points 6 hours ago (3 children)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] nfreak@lemmy.ml 10 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

While not explicitly so, FOSS as a concept aligns very closely with far left anti-capitalist principles. The existence of corporate and right-winger-owned FOSS projects is a bit of an oxymoron, but doesn't discredit the fact that it's inherently a far left concept.

[–] glitzer_gadze@feddit.org 1 points 3 hours ago

I think that communism-capitalism are very inadequate dimensions for discribing the world.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

It's a non-market way of doing things, so sure it fits the definition, but labels are dumb, and the people who really like labels are worse.

You'll also notice that you still have to pay for whatever device Linux goes on, which is a strong hint about the economics at play.

[–] cecilkorik@piefed.ca 1 points 50 minutes ago

Yeah I agree about the labels. The worst part of communism is the people who like communism. I am a simple man, I just want to be technically a communist without liking it or even being remotely interested in it, thankyouverymuch. Open source is great for that.

[–] basxto@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 4 hours ago

No. It strongly depends on the project, they can be organized very differently. You can always fork, but you can also always try to topple dictatorship

[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 5 hours ago

Are they programming on a Mac?

[–] driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br 3 points 6 hours ago

I was introduced to communism/socialism through Linux.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 3 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

A lot of value in capitalism comes from uncompensated work. I don't consider it communism as much as protecting work from exploitation.

[–] DeckPacker@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Isn't protecting workers from exploration on of the core goals of communism?

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 2 points 4 hours ago

maybe but its not the sum totality of it. So I assume communists would like the gpl but view it as unnecessary. I mean judging from what I have heard and read for stallman. I think he would like the gpl to be unnecessary. That all knowledge be free. Its ip law that requires it because of monotenazation of it. So it uses ip law against itself.

[–] ResistingArrest@lemmy.zip 3 points 6 hours ago

There are some people who are in it for what you've listed (flattened hierarchy, worker owned, etc) but there are others who are in it for personal ownership and control, which may align better w/ a libertarian set of values, but you're not wrong about the ancom aspects

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Most of the systems that enslave us run on linux.

[–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Most systems that enslave us runs on electricity, and cruelty, and malice, and the will to dominate all life.

- galadriel or something

[–] Kwakigra@beehaw.org 1 points 5 hours ago

I used to think so. It's ideologically sound except for allowing corporations the same free use as anyone else. There are plenty of forward thinking people who would never want to support the oppressive evil of massive technology corporations and would never intentionally help them. Then they publish free software and directly help them anyway. It's not a coincidence that most "free" software is funded by the US tech industry who is directly benefited from it. I'm not sure of a way to change it that would help regular people faster than it helps private industry crush regular people.

[–] Gork@sopuli.xyz 0 points 3 hours ago

In Soviet Russia, code programs you!

load more comments
view more: next ›