> > Observe that generally, one can set up GPL and various other forms
   of
   > > voluntary communal contracts under capitalism. But that doesn't
   make
   > > capitalism communist/Marxist. It does make capitalism the more
   flexible
   > > system. One in which the GPL linux kernel is indeed doing well,
   along with
   > > countless privately owned projects.

   I think you should start seeing human beings working for something they
   believe they need, money or otherwise.

   Marx just saw (afaik) people working hard for short term gains they
   didn't enjoy, their daily bread, knowing their works' true fruits were
   not their property but their bosses'. The core appeal of communism is
   that a man should enjoy the fruits of his labor. Interestingly, that's
   the core appeal of capitalism too!

   > Marx was worried about endless accumulation of capital by
   industrialists. I
   > find it rather hilariously amusing that for Marx's commons to work,
   it has to
   > be in the capitalist framework of intellectual property ownership.
   >
   > The brilliance of the GPL(v2) is the 'compulsory communal' aspect
   only kicks
   > in when you sell something. No sale, no compulsion to share with your
   customers.

   ?? People don't want to share?? From popularity to appreciation there's
   reasons aplenty!

   > It will be interesting to see how the AGPLv3 plays out long-term. I
   see a lot
   > of code getting released under that license, and I expect at some
   point it
   > will start eating the market share of closed-source cloud 'service'
   providers,
   > because no capital owner can afford to pay engineers when the
   competition is
   > doing the work for free.

   This is definitely affecting some markets. It lowers the barrier for
   entry, driving competition. But the collaboration between companies
   outcompetes any private effort, so there is no choice. It's a neat
   effect, but hardly of relevance to Marx or even the GPL. The GPL is
   just what made the effect happen "in the wild" so strongly that the
   MBA's couldn't deny it anymore.

   The GPL was for people to know what a computer does on their behalves.
   To own what they depend upon. The ability to alter what they dislike.
   And most importantly, to saveguard against madness. No arbitrary
   ristrictions will exist in a open source program for long.

   For example: Sumatra PDF and respecting PDF DRM rules are an
   interesting discussion, to say the least.

   > I guess Marx got trolled by Richard Stallman.

   I think everyones trolling himself, first and foremost.

   Note to all: "give what you can, take what you need" is in no way fair,
   nor even noble. It's economic suicide.