[AsyncAwait]

Not every 'socialist' proposal has to mean 'big, bad government', as some political circles like to portray it. Look at the success of free/open-source software. It didn't involve any nationalisation, government protection etc. No, it beat the competition in the free market, many times even in a market that wasn't really 'free' because of vendor lock-in, lobbying etc. I don't see why this could not work elsewhere as well.

[cturner]

Free software does not extend from socialist thought.

Stallman's initial realisation was a reaction to crony capitalism: he could not modify the printer due to IP rules. Essentially, a deal is done between government and big business (the manufacturer and possibly the university), at the expense of hackers (individuals).

The justifications for copyright are rooted in common-good arguments. The state limits individual freedom, claiming that it should because of (undemonstrated) common-good advantages. Hayek explores this, and takes a position against IP in _The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism_.

A better political analogy for free software is a conflict from early US history: between landowner and state rights advocates (Jefferson) vs big-business visions (Hamilton).

[llcoolv]

Open-source is socialist, really? I just thought it was a fancy way of showcasing skills and did it for fatter invoices it leads to, not public approval. An investment which requires capital in the form of skill. How on Earth is this socialist?