I very much doubt that. I suspect that what your country was in the shadow of was Stalinism. Just because the nice American man said you were living under communism doesn't mean anything as Americans generally can not tell the difference between Communism, Stalinism, and Socialism (and assume they're all Stalinism).
Whatever it was, it was bad. It was based on the communistic ideas and they got twisted, because that's their nature. Read Animal Farm.
Communism, like capitalism, is based on a model of the world which only works if everyone acts in exactly the way the inventor of the model thought they should. Neither work in reality; both need socialist elements to prevent them turning into a nightmare for all but the top 500 or so people in a country.
Why people think that the same can happen to foundations like this one? What would stop the chosen (by the foundation's board) community members to subside their own projects and to become "more equal" then the others?
It is a socialistic idea that the wealth should be distributed by the state. Replace state with community as we live in a global world and take into account the fact that FOSS is not about freedom, but about the denial of the private property and you will realize that the communistic ideology is where the world is heading which scares the guts out of me as my country used to be in its shadow and now it is ruined.
You seem well versed in this field and I'd ask you to think about the following which represents my views -
What can be better in a world where a free market is build in a society, where the liberty of speech, the choice of religion and the private property are guaranteed by the law and the law treats people as equal?
ho the f... are you to evaluate me?! Ah, yes - an Anonymous Coward..
Java used to be a proprietary technology, especially the Java VM. That's the reason why RMS encouraged the development of free Java VM.
As to if Java is a means for production - there's no doubt about it. It is an essential part of the means and appeals to many software developers.
Ideologically communism is not in favor of worker's exploitation. Stallman follows the same ideology. He welcomes companies to participate in the GNU system as long as they abide to the GPL license. Generally he doesn't think much of the companies.
Cooperation has nothing to do with that. Entities acting for a common goal a concept old as the world itself.
Fundamentally, I'm conflating an old ideology with a new one with similar (if not the same) ideas. Of course communism is forbidden word and can not be used.
I'm not an extremist, those who reject all the proprietary software are. I do not reject the GPL software - on the contrary - I try to take advantage of it.
"what communists demanded was abolishing the private ownership of means of production only."
What was the incentive for free Java if not one for a community owned means of production?
What is common management if not community management i.e. fsf management?
I don't care about the ownership of the computer/cdplayer because I am a software developper.
Mine country was socialist too. Don't you think that we are obliged to share our experience with the world?
In fact the private property is a foundation of the capitalism, together with the free market. As most successful democracies are build on a capitalistic economic systems we may infer that the private property is a feature of the democracy.
RMS not only thinks that the private property is a bad economic model for immaterial things, but also wages a war against the model. He calls the distribution of proprietary software unethical and that makes his ideas communistic, because he doesn't accept the variety. It is a communistic idea that there should not be private property. For me as a software professional that means everything.
Equating software and ideas is incorrect. The ownership of ideas corresponds to the software patents which seem a bad idea. The ownership of software is a different beast especially if the software is well protected from disassembling it to ideas.
You are right about the terms, but I meant that it is a property of the democracy indirectly because the most successful democracies are build on the capitalistic economic systems.
The abolition of the private property is clear characteristic of the communism. Just introduce it in a system and everything communistic will follow. It is a socialistic idea that the economy (the word is controversial in this philosophy) should be controlled by the state. FSF currently just promotes the free software but I am sure they would love to to sponsor it (in fact they sponsor it in terms of hosting and advertisement). Generally, that would mean that the community (in a global economy the community is equivalent to the state) distributes the wealth.
It is simple - Stallman is a communist. His ideas for free software have nothing to do with freedom, but with the denial of the private property. Whereas the private property is in the foundations of the democracy.
Slashdot Mirror
It is a socialistic idea that the wealth should be distributed by the state. Replace state with community as we live in a global world and take into account the fact that FOSS is not about freedom, but about the denial of the private property and you will realize that the communistic ideology is where the world is heading which scares the guts out of me as my country used to be in its shadow and now it is ruined.
You seem well versed in this field and I'd ask you to think about the following which represents my views - What can be better in a world where a free market is build in a society, where the liberty of speech, the choice of religion and the private property are guaranteed by the law and the law treats people as equal?
ho the f... are you to evaluate me?! Ah, yes - an Anonymous Coward.. Java used to be a proprietary technology, especially the Java VM. That's the reason why RMS encouraged the development of free Java VM. As to if Java is a means for production - there's no doubt about it. It is an essential part of the means and appeals to many software developers. Ideologically communism is not in favor of worker's exploitation. Stallman follows the same ideology. He welcomes companies to participate in the GNU system as long as they abide to the GPL license. Generally he doesn't think much of the companies. Cooperation has nothing to do with that. Entities acting for a common goal a concept old as the world itself. Fundamentally, I'm conflating an old ideology with a new one with similar (if not the same) ideas. Of course communism is forbidden word and can not be used. I'm not an extremist, those who reject all the proprietary software are. I do not reject the GPL software - on the contrary - I try to take advantage of it.
"what communists demanded was abolishing the private ownership of means of production only." What was the incentive for free Java if not one for a community owned means of production? What is common management if not community management i.e. fsf management? I don't care about the ownership of the computer/cdplayer because I am a software developper. Mine country was socialist too. Don't you think that we are obliged to share our experience with the world?
In fact the private property is a foundation of the capitalism, together with the free market. As most successful democracies are build on a capitalistic economic systems we may infer that the private property is a feature of the democracy. RMS not only thinks that the private property is a bad economic model for immaterial things, but also wages a war against the model. He calls the distribution of proprietary software unethical and that makes his ideas communistic, because he doesn't accept the variety. It is a communistic idea that there should not be private property. For me as a software professional that means everything. Equating software and ideas is incorrect. The ownership of ideas corresponds to the software patents which seem a bad idea. The ownership of software is a different beast especially if the software is well protected from disassembling it to ideas.
You are right about the terms, but I meant that it is a property of the democracy indirectly because the most successful democracies are build on the capitalistic economic systems.
The abolition of the private property is clear characteristic of the communism. Just introduce it in a system and everything communistic will follow. It is a socialistic idea that the economy (the word is controversial in this philosophy) should be controlled by the state. FSF currently just promotes the free software but I am sure they would love to to sponsor it (in fact they sponsor it in terms of hosting and advertisement). Generally, that would mean that the community (in a global economy the community is equivalent to the state) distributes the wealth.
It is simple - Stallman is a communist. His ideas for free software have nothing to do with freedom, but with the denial of the private property. Whereas the private property is in the foundations of the democracy.