[paavokoya]

This is my exact argument for why "free market" doesn't always work. Sometimes you need to subsidize an unprofitable venture to truly move forward. Then innovation and profit models come after the initial hurdle is over. Most investors don't want to subsidize for long-term profit though.

[mamon]

Blaming "free market" for Linux kernel underfunding is very twisted logic.

I would argue that any GPL-ed software is a hallmark of communism as it is public property and noone is allowed to make any money on it (at least not directly). Therefore, the strongest motivation for hard work (profit) is absent.

[geofft]

Communism, as commonly defined, is a system of government. If there was any government compulsion for Linux to exist, or even if there was government-funded work in making Linux better than commercial alternatives, you'd have an argument. But this is a product that people use in the presence of excellent commercial alternatives.

Also, it's totally untrue that it's public property (it's private property, just a lot of people's and companies' private property), and that you're not allowed to make money on it "directly". You can make as much money as the market is willing to pay you. If you are selling things that are already publicly available without any added value, that's probably $0, but that's not the result of any permission not being given to you, that's the result of you failing at business. If bottled municipal water is a thriving industry, there's no reason that providing GPL'd Linux patches in a useful form can't be a thriving industry (and in fact it is).