[usr1106]

I think it's the general idea that free (as in speech) software is "democratic". Even if the project does not do what you want you can always modify or fork, i.e. make changes privately for your own use or even distribute them. Closed source software is like totalitarianism, the leader or leading party knows what is best for you.

Democracy is not the best analogy, free software projects have BDFLs. The difference is more indirect, in democracies citizens have rights and freedoms. In non-democracies typically less so.

[thezipcreator]

FOSS is more anarchistic than democratic, I think. Sure, there exist democratic organizations like the Debian Organization, but if you don't agree with their decisions not much binds you to them (that's how projects like Devuan can exist). The same applies to projects with BDFLs as well (altho I do disagree with that form of governance for a project).

[7bit]

99,9999999% of the people using open-Source software are absolutely unable to modify or fork said software. From the other 0,00000000% most don't care enought to modify it.

Calling it democratic is is like calling cancer a completely natural phenomenon. It's true, but it's also completely beside the point

[usr1106]

So what? Coming back to the poor analogy of democracy, the same fraction of voters could not run a government. The majority has never participated in any public manifestation.That does not mean we should all live under dictatorship.