Governments turn to Open Source for sovereignty(opensource.net)
opensource.net
Governments turn to Open Source for sovereignty
https://opensource.net/governments-adopt-open-source-sovereignty/
109 comments
I can confirm that a couple of public libraries have the computer terminals running some version of SuSE with KDE.
I'd say the vast majority of users think "Office suite" == "Google Docs." I don't know the last time I've touched a locally installed office suite whether MS Office or LibreOffice.
Your sample is not representative. Plenty of people still use MS Office. It's not only local install anymore either now that they have an online version.
It's probably fairer to say Google Docs OR Office365--though in my personal experience I see Google a lot more. But how many people are actually installing local copies of office productivity suites? I certainly don't see them when people send documents around.
As a teacher from Germany I love this idea. Please, give it to schools as well. All other (American) options seem to be a privacy nightmare or just too expensive.
You might be interested in the Netzwerk Freie Schulsoftware https://digitalcourage.de/netzwerk-freie-schulsoftware
> ...All other (American) options seem to be a privacy nightmare or just too expensive...
As someone born, raised and living/working in America (but with roots from South America), and who has been at odds with my kid's school system over these precise issues, I agree, the options available from predominantly American companies and used in American schools sucks badly! While western style capitalism might make sense in some areas of society, i think education should not be so blaringly driven by western style capitalism...the incentives perverse too much the goals of education system, and to the detriment of the children being educated, the taxpayers paying into the system to enable a good education system, these same children/students who in the future will lead the society, etc. Sorry, didn't mean to make it politicial...its simply annoying for me...And, i'm usuaully the person in discussions who is not minding paying full taxes - when they're used responsibily, because i understand having a society that is as educated as possible helps the future of all society in so many ways. Ok, i'm off my soap box now. Please carry on. :-)
EDIT/ADDENDUM: Sorry @Hiko0, I meant to add: Thanks for all that you do as a teacher!!! Its not an easy profession as it used to be (at least not in America). ;-)
As someone born, raised and living/working in America (but with roots from South America), and who has been at odds with my kid's school system over these precise issues, I agree, the options available from predominantly American companies and used in American schools sucks badly! While western style capitalism might make sense in some areas of society, i think education should not be so blaringly driven by western style capitalism...the incentives perverse too much the goals of education system, and to the detriment of the children being educated, the taxpayers paying into the system to enable a good education system, these same children/students who in the future will lead the society, etc. Sorry, didn't mean to make it politicial...its simply annoying for me...And, i'm usuaully the person in discussions who is not minding paying full taxes - when they're used responsibily, because i understand having a society that is as educated as possible helps the future of all society in so many ways. Ok, i'm off my soap box now. Please carry on. :-)
EDIT/ADDENDUM: Sorry @Hiko0, I meant to add: Thanks for all that you do as a teacher!!! Its not an easy profession as it used to be (at least not in America). ;-)
Is Germany funding the oss projects as well? Traditionally they have this mindset of free open source software, with a strong emphasis on free, while not factoring in the cost of maintaining a project. When the usage gets higher there should be a plan for sustainable progress and maintenance.
Yes. Germany's "Sovereign Tech Fund" to support open source tech has made 11.5million Euros available for 2023: https://www.sovereigntechfund.de/faq
Thanks for sharing, interesting. But the named components in the article seem not to have received funding.
Germany's funding of Gnome was discussed here on HN just last week event:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38228649
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38228649
https://mastodon.matrix.org/@element/110340953550548309
"Yes, we fund Matrix dev by selling encrypted messaging to governments, which includes police: if you don’t like that then please feel free to use a different app."
"Yes, we fund Matrix dev by selling encrypted messaging to governments, which includes police: if you don’t like that then please feel free to use a different app."
I must admit I first read this as "we sell encrypted messages to governments" and spit my coffee from the surprise.
yup, this was not my finest wording :(
So?
There is also https://opencode.de/en/ueber-open-code but I think this is less about funding
EDIT: okay sorry, this was already mentionend in TFA
EDIT: okay sorry, this was already mentionend in TFA
Wow, so much! The corona app was €214m. Telekom and SAP were were happy to take that!
That’s a widely repeated though at best highly misleading number. It includes all of the backup telephone bank system (for getting the TANs for the actual release [0]), the link to the public health system (for reporting) and the money to upgrade the lab systems so that these can enter the test results in the system.
Unfortunately I never saw a splitted-out version of the budget, but from the list above I’d be surprised if even 10% went to the actual app(s) itself.
[0] which, completely shockingly I know, massively reduced the number is released contact traces
[0] which, completely shockingly I know, massively reduced the number is released contact traces
„Demnach erhielten die Entwickler und Betreiber der App, die Firmen SAP und Deutsche Telekom, im Jahr 2020 52,8 Millionen Euro. Im Folgejahr stiegen die Ausgaben auf 78,8 Millionen Euro. 2022 sanken die Kosten auf 68,6 Millionen.”
What’s misleading, exactly?
What’s misleading, exactly?
The "Betreiber" part includes the phone banks, which, being operated 24/7/365 and scaled for 80m inhabitants, will run a tab pretty quickly (in particular since I never heard anyone having trouble getting a person on the phone). And the "Entwickler" part includes software upgrades on the lab systems, which (IIRC and I'm far too lazy to actually go and check) were a couple of thousand. Effectively they upgraded all the lab systems in Germany with that money.
None of that is covered when I'm thinking about "developed an app for XX EUR". The money isn't the misleading part, it's the insinuation for what it was spend that's misleading. If you can dig up a itemised bill I'd be very interested, but I don't think anyone will get that in the next 10 years without a huge effort involving actual courts...
None of that is covered when I'm thinking about "developed an app for XX EUR". The money isn't the misleading part, it's the insinuation for what it was spend that's misleading. If you can dig up a itemised bill I'd be very interested, but I don't think anyone will get that in the next 10 years without a huge effort involving actual courts...
[deleted]
Yes, at least there are several public libraries running on Linux distributions.
Note that one of the projects on this list - Element - recently changed their license to one intended to make it impractical to deploy the open source version and make users buy commercial proprietary licences instead for the specific reason that governments were buying support for their software from companies other than them and they wanted to stop that. Which I think shows a pretty big practical limitation of this approach.
Are you referring to their Affero GPL relicensing? That only makes it impractical to deploy versions with proprietary alterations, no?
The AGPLv3 is designed to ban versions with proprietary alternations full stop. In order to do that, it places some pretty daunting requirements on any modification - even open source ones. The moment you make any change, you must ensure that all users interacting with the software over the network are offered an opportunity to receive the corresponding source and that offer must be prominent. The original software does not have to include a way to offer such notices, just updating any existing code that does to point to the modified source is not necessarily sufficient to comply (unlike with the previous Affero GPL), and the protocols it relies on don't even have to be designed in a way that makes this feasible. It's not clear how this would even work with a federated chat protocol.
> The original software does not have to include a way to offer such notices, just updating any existing code that does to point to the modified source is not necessarily sufficient to comply
This is not what the license says.
"If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must display Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Program has interactive interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal Notices, your work need not make them do so." https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html
This is not what the license says.
"If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must display Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Program has interactive interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal Notices, your work need not make them do so." https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html
That's a clause from the standard GPLv3 covering something different:
"An interactive user interface displays “Appropriate Legal Notices” to the extent that it includes a convenient and prominently visible feature that (1) displays an appropriate copyright notice, and (2) tells the user that there is no warranty for the work (except to the extent that warranties are provided), that licensees may convey the work under this License, and how to view a copy of this License. If the interface presents a list of user commands or options, such as a menu, a prominent item in the list meets this criterion."
The requirement to offer users of modified versions interacting remotely over a computer network a copy of the source is seperate and has no such limitation. Which rather suggests that the drafters of the license considered this issue of requiring people to make unrelated modifications and did nothing to stop it.
"An interactive user interface displays “Appropriate Legal Notices” to the extent that it includes a convenient and prominently visible feature that (1) displays an appropriate copyright notice, and (2) tells the user that there is no warranty for the work (except to the extent that warranties are provided), that licensees may convey the work under this License, and how to view a copy of this License. If the interface presents a list of user commands or options, such as a menu, a prominent item in the list meets this criterion."
The requirement to offer users of modified versions interacting remotely over a computer network a copy of the source is seperate and has no such limitation. Which rather suggests that the drafters of the license considered this issue of requiring people to make unrelated modifications and did nothing to stop it.
Its interesting that OX are on the list, because OX appear to be going down the road of freezing open-source featureset and reserving (new) advanced features for their commercial customers.
The Dovecot commercial product manager has for example said in a presentation[1]:
"there will be an open source version, but that open source version will be maintained for single server use only. we are actually taking out anything any actually kinda' involves multiple servers, dsync replication and err some other stuff. so dovecot will be a fully-featured single node server"
[1] https://youtu.be/s-JYrjCKshA?feature=shared&t=912
The Dovecot commercial product manager has for example said in a presentation[1]:
"there will be an open source version, but that open source version will be maintained for single server use only. we are actually taking out anything any actually kinda' involves multiple servers, dsync replication and err some other stuff. so dovecot will be a fully-featured single node server"
[1] https://youtu.be/s-JYrjCKshA?feature=shared&t=912
This is truly wonderful! I love Germany's committment to open source. I think that all governments should be going this route, particularly given their revenue comes from the people, it should be used in a way that maximally benefits the people.
They also recently announced €1M in funding for Gnome: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38284787
They also recently announced €1M in funding for Gnome: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38284787
How does this affect corporate software vendors? Oracle, SAP?
Is it just me that finds it weird the EU, and specially Russia/China/Iran don't strongly support OS and/or Linux for that reason?
At least for the EU, i can understand. Managing infrastructure is not somethign the brusselo-cracy does, like not at all. They do regulation well, and lobbying management, so they are solely focusing on that.
I see no reason why we don't have EU-wide public email, mastodon, documents, and now AI. That is not such a huge project and it would give the EU huge creds for actually creating european infrastructure.
I see no reason why we don't have EU-wide public email, mastodon, documents, and now AI. That is not such a huge project and it would give the EU huge creds for actually creating european infrastructure.
The EU has their own mastodon instance at least. Only for official accounts but it means they are part of the federated network
Then why are they spending so much on facebook ads: https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/report/
Of course a government needs to run its ads/PSAs where its people actually are, even if they are trying to promote alternatives.
Not to mention the surveillance potential of government run email and document servers. Oh, and AI chatbots too. People will just give you everything you could ever want to know about them, and plenty about those around them too ("my coworker told me that she got an abortion"). They should be giddy at this opportunity!
China does support FOSS, the government even directly runs the Chinese equivalent of github, gitee.com
For the EU, its lobbying and the internia caused by the fact that all businesses are bought into commercial software ecosystem. Don’t know why China and Iran though - agree it would make sense. Russia too.
We haven't, because until recently we were all friends, so no one ever thought Europe would be prevented to use American technologies.
Now with recent events, Europeans have started to realise we might eventually also be locked out of technologies that are too relevant for US.
The main point of RISC-V conference in Barcelona, was exactly how to bootstrap the whole ecosystem (hardware + software) across Europe.
Now with recent events, Europeans have started to realise we might eventually also be locked out of technologies that are too relevant for US.
The main point of RISC-V conference in Barcelona, was exactly how to bootstrap the whole ecosystem (hardware + software) across Europe.
Linux is American software. How would they support it? They do have their own Linux distributions and derivatives. But contributing might be problematic, both from sending side (you're helping Americans, you're traitor) and from receiving side (can't accept contributions from Russians, might contain backdoors or might violate sanctions, not safe).
I don't think nationality is that important for FOSS. I can see why cooperating with the original efforts centred in the USA/Europe might be problematic, but there's little stopping those governments from copying the code and working on it internally. And might contain backdoors or might violate sanctions" is the exact reason those countries should be thinking about it!
Btw, it seems my premise is incorrect, I thought only North Korea was doing a serious effort, but at least from Wikipedia it seems both Russia and China are.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Flag_Linux
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unity_Operating_System
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astra_Linux
Btw, it seems my premise is incorrect, I thought only North Korea was doing a serious effort, but at least from Wikipedia it seems both Russia and China are.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Flag_Linux
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unity_Operating_System
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astra_Linux
I hate to be a GNU-Linux pedant, but isn't it GNU that's American, while Linux (the kernel) is European?
Linux Foundation is a US nonprofit[0], maybe that's what they're getting at? /shrug
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Foundation
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Foundation
Counting by contributions, most are from US companies. Only Huawei is a notable exception. Linus is an American citizen, AFAIK. Linux Foundation is US company.
[deleted]
We can always fork the last version, and then carry on with EU Linux, or whatever.
As a 70's child, present times are starting to look like cold war times home computers.
As a 70's child, present times are starting to look like cold war times home computers.
Sorry to ask, but where do you get your "facts" ????
China developed, organized and promotes Kylin (Linux based) with a high degree of desktop penetration with the express purpose of replacing Windows and Apple desktops (laptops, etc.).
Russia funds, promotes and standardized Astra Linux. Same express purpose.
India promotes BOSS (Bharat Operating System Solutions) with the same intentions. BOSS also has a standardized server configuration.
You can read more about national Linux/OSS endeavors all over the Web.
China developed, organized and promotes Kylin (Linux based) with a high degree of desktop penetration with the express purpose of replacing Windows and Apple desktops (laptops, etc.).
Russia funds, promotes and standardized Astra Linux. Same express purpose.
India promotes BOSS (Bharat Operating System Solutions) with the same intentions. BOSS also has a standardized server configuration.
You can read more about national Linux/OSS endeavors all over the Web.
My apologies I only bothered to update myself and see those things you mentioned after posting. My only vague recollections were of news articles about massive install bases of outdated pirated MS Windows and occasional well publicized but ultimately minor efforts like the Munich thing.
The 2014 events for Russia and the new cold war stuff for China seem to have pushed those countries into doing something. Thanks for the update.
The 2014 events for Russia and the new cold war stuff for China seem to have pushed those countries into doing something. Thanks for the update.
It is easier to use *BSD for something like that. It is smaller, more consistent, you are not forced to release your changes...
The idea that any of those countries would care at all about license terms is laughable though. China in particular had such a large pirated Windows install base, that Microsoft realized they needed to keep releasing updates lest they want an endless botnet on their hands (might also do substantial damage to manufacturing infrastructure).
Contract can be international and are enforceable! It would be a huge problem for possible future exports, if there was liability with GPLv2 violations!
Microsoft would rather China run on mostly pirated Windows than on Linux.
The Chinese do have a government-sponsored distro, Red Flag Linux, and at one point the Chinese government ordered Windows 2000 be uninstalled from government computers and replaced by Red Flag Linux, although whether that actually happened, while anyone’s guess, is unlikely.
The Chinese do have a government-sponsored distro, Red Flag Linux, and at one point the Chinese government ordered Windows 2000 be uninstalled from government computers and replaced by Red Flag Linux, although whether that actually happened, while anyone’s guess, is unlikely.
>> It is smaller, more consistent, you are not forced to release your changes...
They're trying to move away from proprietary software, not create more of it.
They're trying to move away from proprietary software, not create more of it.
I was just thinking the other day how strange it is that so many blindly defend capitalism but love open source. Those are inherently contradictory positions. Open source is inherently anti-capitalist.
Some years ago some large company (Microsoft?) came out and called open source a huge destroyer of wealth. They're correct, in the capitalist sense. But as we (largely tech people) know: open source allows us all to net benefit, which in turns creates opportunities.
Linux runs on billions of devices. This is collectivism in action.
By extension, proprietary software (as noted here) makes governments beholden to private companies. I fully support Germany (and other countris) in embracing open sourrce.
Some years ago some large company (Microsoft?) came out and called open source a huge destroyer of wealth. They're correct, in the capitalist sense. But as we (largely tech people) know: open source allows us all to net benefit, which in turns creates opportunities.
Linux runs on billions of devices. This is collectivism in action.
By extension, proprietary software (as noted here) makes governments beholden to private companies. I fully support Germany (and other countris) in embracing open sourrce.
I don't get how you go from “you should be able to know what runs on your computer” to “we should eliminate private ownership and free trade”.
I imagine if you give it long enough and try to uphold an expectation of "knowing/controlling what runs on your computer(s)" you will gradually gain a serious dislike of proprietary software and come to understand why people feel that capitalism and open source do not get along (and never will). The whole field of proprietary commercial software is VERY coercive.
Your ability to truly control what runs on your machine decreases every day. Want to keep being able to talk with your friends and family? Better update the respective app, even though it removed one of the key features you relied on or enjoyed. Oh hey, now another feature you really liked is subscription-only! No going back, either, once you updated you're locked into that functionality forever.
Oh yeah, if you don't update automatically, you'll just constantly be harassed by manipulative dialog boxes that say never let you actually say "no", your choices are "yes I submit" or "maybe I'll give in to your demands later". All these coercive features are strictly driven by exactly one thing: profit. That is the absolute defining factor of all coercive functionality in modern software.
The primary driver of open source software is providing something useful to empower people and improve their lives (even in a trivial sense like some inconsequential mini-game or utility only the author cares about).
The primary driver of proprietary software is profit. Actual benefit to humans is literally secondary -- if businesses could ship software that is made with zero lines of code and provides zero benefit to anyone, but people still paid $100 for it? They'd absolutely ship that without hesitation!
Really, I can talk about this dichotomy all day, because I've been recognizing this extreme contrast increasingly every day for years as I became more and more disillusioned by the increasing hostility I've experienced from the OSes and software I thought were trying to empower me but truly only care about extracting money from me (with usefulness seeming like a side effect begrudgingly fulfilled).
Your ability to truly control what runs on your machine decreases every day. Want to keep being able to talk with your friends and family? Better update the respective app, even though it removed one of the key features you relied on or enjoyed. Oh hey, now another feature you really liked is subscription-only! No going back, either, once you updated you're locked into that functionality forever.
Oh yeah, if you don't update automatically, you'll just constantly be harassed by manipulative dialog boxes that say never let you actually say "no", your choices are "yes I submit" or "maybe I'll give in to your demands later". All these coercive features are strictly driven by exactly one thing: profit. That is the absolute defining factor of all coercive functionality in modern software.
The primary driver of open source software is providing something useful to empower people and improve their lives (even in a trivial sense like some inconsequential mini-game or utility only the author cares about).
The primary driver of proprietary software is profit. Actual benefit to humans is literally secondary -- if businesses could ship software that is made with zero lines of code and provides zero benefit to anyone, but people still paid $100 for it? They'd absolutely ship that without hesitation!
Really, I can talk about this dichotomy all day, because I've been recognizing this extreme contrast increasingly every day for years as I became more and more disillusioned by the increasing hostility I've experienced from the OSes and software I thought were trying to empower me but truly only care about extracting money from me (with usefulness seeming like a side effect begrudgingly fulfilled).
The good thing about free markets is that you are free to choose to not use proprietary software. Unfortunately, there is some proprietary software that you have to use to function normally in the modern society. Chat apps, as you mentioned, banking apps, etc. – precisely because the markets for such software are not free. That's not a problem with capitalism itself, but with insufficient regulation. The new regulation by the EU (Digital Markets Act) will hopefully eventually sort out the situation with chat apps and inspire more regulation to address similar problems.
On the other hand, I can easily imagine a communist government requiring people to use certain proprietary software.
On the other hand, I can easily imagine a communist government requiring people to use certain proprietary software.
Capitalism and free trade are orthogonal concepts, and the tired trope of "criticise capitalism = so you think we should abolish trade and private property" is boring. Yawn.
> and the tired trope of "criticise capitalism = so you think we should abolish trade and private property"
Property rights and voluntary exchange are the main characteristics of capitalism. What else do you want to abolish, if not that?
Property rights and voluntary exchange are the main characteristics of capitalism. What else do you want to abolish, if not that?
Why not just abolish corporate ownership?
That prevents you from trading with certain people.
Example: I want to sell my labor to B for a salary, but due to corporate ownership being banned I am not allowed to. If you just limit the size of corporations, that will still happen when B has grown a bit and is unable to hire more people due to having hit the cap.
What if we transfer the company to some other entity? Well, I want to sell my labor to B, not to that new entity. Maybe I'm friends with B, or maybe I believe in B's vision, maybe B is giving me joint ownership of the corporation, or some other reason, doesn't matter why it still is a legal limitation.
Example: I want to sell my labor to B for a salary, but due to corporate ownership being banned I am not allowed to. If you just limit the size of corporations, that will still happen when B has grown a bit and is unable to hire more people due to having hit the cap.
What if we transfer the company to some other entity? Well, I want to sell my labor to B, not to that new entity. Maybe I'm friends with B, or maybe I believe in B's vision, maybe B is giving me joint ownership of the corporation, or some other reason, doesn't matter why it still is a legal limitation.
Probably the way that for most people "free open source software" means 1) Zero cost 2) Some other stuff
There is no free market in capitalism, because it creates monopolies, and you easily could have some form of market socialism with workers cooperative based economy.
"Free market is an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses."
Monopolies restrict competition, obviously.
Monopolies restrict competition, obviously.
Capitalism doesn't inherently create monopolies. Badly regulated capitalism does.
Or more generally, badly regulated anything tends to create new power centers. If you don't prevent people from organizing then they will organize and create a new power structure. See workers unionizing, corporations becoming monopolies, maffias, rebels becoming kings etc etc.
So this has nothing to do with capitalism, it happens under every single system unless you have strong forces to prevent it. If you ban companies, then informal companies will appear in the form of mafias or similar (we call medieval maffias nobles), and those will completely ignore any regulations and therefore be the worst kind of capitalism.
So this has nothing to do with capitalism, it happens under every single system unless you have strong forces to prevent it. If you ban companies, then informal companies will appear in the form of mafias or similar (we call medieval maffias nobles), and those will completely ignore any regulations and therefore be the worst kind of capitalism.
> Or more generally, badly regulated anything tends to create new power centers.
> ..
> So this has nothing to do with capitalism
Capitalism is the idea of the market regulating itself, no?. Regulation / Government is a mixed economy (Socialism (edit: this is incorrect)) at best.
The whole talking point (when it is convenient) around "free enterprise" is the lack of regulation, see neoliberalism.
Regulation is also not the answer when the people in charge of regulation are or are funded by the corporate entities being regulated.
Worker cooperatives or really any economic system that privileges socially intentional results is simply a better model. I'd much rather own the means of my production than have someone else regulate the work I also do for someone else. I'd also happen to need less government and have more agency to care for the welfare of others. Hmmm..
Capitalism is the idea of the market regulating itself, no?. Regulation / Government is a mixed economy (Socialism (edit: this is incorrect)) at best.
The whole talking point (when it is convenient) around "free enterprise" is the lack of regulation, see neoliberalism.
Regulation is also not the answer when the people in charge of regulation are or are funded by the corporate entities being regulated.
Worker cooperatives or really any economic system that privileges socially intentional results is simply a better model. I'd much rather own the means of my production than have someone else regulate the work I also do for someone else. I'd also happen to need less government and have more agency to care for the welfare of others. Hmmm..
> Capitalism is the idea of the market regulating itself, no?
No, markets completely regulating themselves would be anarchism. Protecting your property rights and your contracts is a form of regulations in itself, that is the fundamental part of capitalism and is what enables large companies to form without military might.
Protecting property and contract rights encompasses many things, such as protecting your property from being taken from you via unfair means such as extortion etc. This necessitates limiting others property rights, others can't just build a wall around your property and force you to sell it for example.
> Regulation / Government is a mixed economy (Socialism) at best.
No, that is just regular capitalism. Socialism doesn't allow privately owned companies. Are you from USA? They misunderstand this part a lot, thinking that Europe isn't capitalist or something.
No, markets completely regulating themselves would be anarchism. Protecting your property rights and your contracts is a form of regulations in itself, that is the fundamental part of capitalism and is what enables large companies to form without military might.
Protecting property and contract rights encompasses many things, such as protecting your property from being taken from you via unfair means such as extortion etc. This necessitates limiting others property rights, others can't just build a wall around your property and force you to sell it for example.
> Regulation / Government is a mixed economy (Socialism) at best.
No, that is just regular capitalism. Socialism doesn't allow privately owned companies. Are you from USA? They misunderstand this part a lot, thinking that Europe isn't capitalist or something.
> No, markets completely regulating themselves would be anarchism. Protecting your property rights and your contracts is a form of regulations in itself, that is the fundamental part of capitalism and is what enables large companies to form without military might.
Huh, I am from the U.S. and I wasn't aware that Socialism was sort of all or nothing. (I'm not a socialist). I would say that it is presented differently (or at least culturally differently) where I am. Good catch.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism says:
> The degree of competition in markets and the role of intervention and regulation, as well as the scope of state ownership, vary across different models of capitalism. The extent to which different markets are free and the rules defining private property are matters of politics and policy.
I do think that the point of my comment is definitely still at play, even if regulation is absorbed into the definition. Happy to speak more to it.
----- I can't seem to reply to comments, so let me rephrase.
"Huh, I didn't know that, thanks for the learning opportunity! I'm very used to hearing Socialism thrown around as a boogeyman in my country whenever a policy is mentioned that benefits people disenfranchised by the aggregation of capital into the hands of a few. I think my point is still valid, regardless."
Huh, I am from the U.S. and I wasn't aware that Socialism was sort of all or nothing. (I'm not a socialist). I would say that it is presented differently (or at least culturally differently) where I am. Good catch.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism says:
> The degree of competition in markets and the role of intervention and regulation, as well as the scope of state ownership, vary across different models of capitalism. The extent to which different markets are free and the rules defining private property are matters of politics and policy.
I do think that the point of my comment is definitely still at play, even if regulation is absorbed into the definition. Happy to speak more to it.
----- I can't seem to reply to comments, so let me rephrase.
"Huh, I didn't know that, thanks for the learning opportunity! I'm very used to hearing Socialism thrown around as a boogeyman in my country whenever a policy is mentioned that benefits people disenfranchised by the aggregation of capital into the hands of a few. I think my point is still valid, regardless."
> Huh, I didn't know that, thanks for the learning opportunity! I'm very used to hearing Socialism thrown around as a boogeyman in my country whenever a policy is mentioned that benefits people disenfranchised by the aggregation of capital into the hands of a few.
> I think my point is still valid, regardless.
Yeah, but unless you think that taxation is theft and thus violates property rights there is nothing that prevents a capitalist state from taxing people with excess and giving that to people in need.
The "taxation is theft" crowd aren't pro capitalism, they are pro anarcho-capitalism which is essentially just anarchy. Don't listen to them.
> I think my point is still valid, regardless.
Yeah, but unless you think that taxation is theft and thus violates property rights there is nothing that prevents a capitalist state from taxing people with excess and giving that to people in need.
The "taxation is theft" crowd aren't pro capitalism, they are pro anarcho-capitalism which is essentially just anarchy. Don't listen to them.
Anarcho-capitalism is not anarchy, so don't listen to yourself.
> Yeah, but unless you think that taxation is theft and thus violates property rights there is nothing that prevents a capitalist state from taxing people with excess and giving that to people in need.
Okay, definitely sorry for the confusion. Let me sort of explain where I'm coming from.
My primary point is pretty simple.
> any economic system that privileges socially intentional results is simply a better model.
I do think it's very counterintuitive for a word like "Captialism" to have a slippery meaning with regards to regulation, so maybe we could agree on the following assertion:
--- Capitalism is an economic system that privileges private ownership over social intention ---
If that is acceptable, then I'd like to break it down from my perspective. My understanding of work has way more to do with (social) agency and (our) my ability to provide intentional value than it has to do navigating a bloated system that is undermined by corporate interests. Please note that I am most certainly not taking a cue from Europe on the economic situation in the U.S. as I think the landscape (literally) is a bit different.
If Capitalism can be demarcated by privileging private ownership and enterprise over social intention, I believe the value proposition is that the nature of competition will create social value (jobs that give people money to eat) as a side effect of producing and distributing "innovative" products that speak to social desires. (demand). If the company cannot be competitive, perhaps there is no demand, or they can't pay well, then it's accepted that the company probably shouldn't exist.
There is also a strong notion of individual agency, in which a motivated go-getter can work hard and do well for themselves and their family.
So, I think it's fair to say that the virtuous parts of Capitalism are the idea that anyone can pull themselves out of poverty, and the mechanic of self regulation, which speaks to the ability for Capitalism to eventually meet social intention in a roundabout way.
My assertion is that mechanic of Capitalism (competition) might eventually meet social intention eventually at first through the virtue of self regulation, but the further it drifts, the harder it this becomes.
Of course, we can slap some government, social welfare, and regulatory committees on it, so now social intention (which absolutely should be exercised by meaningful work) becomes contingent on voting every so often.
Meanwhile, wealth is aggregated into the top 10% or 1% of the population, and since people are not perfect, we end up with laws like money is considered free speech, so private interests end up having a dominant say in legislation. It is not surprising that the U.S. has a wildly polarized 2 party culture, when considering how bad the current system is for both parties.
If we have more of our individual agency deferred to government, then we have more taxes and less freedom. If we don't, people starve and/or literally die.
This mechanic is absolutely a double bind with no apparent answer, aside from rethinking the mechanic of the original value proposition.
I like paying taxes for streets and schools and welfare, even though I don't have kids. I don't like paying taxes to bail out large corporations and banks who (with the government's help) reduce our social agency in the first place. So yeah, one is not theft, but think the other absolutely is.
Contingency on government for social intention in a place where hostage politics, voter suppression, and gerrymandering are very *real* things, is not a good thing.
So in all, the critique is largely against the "effects" of advanced capitalism, but also the "competitive mechanic" that allowed it to get that way in the first place.
I don't think a collective mechanic like open source is the answer either, unless developers start privileging GPL.
Okay, definitely sorry for the confusion. Let me sort of explain where I'm coming from.
My primary point is pretty simple.
> any economic system that privileges socially intentional results is simply a better model.
I do think it's very counterintuitive for a word like "Captialism" to have a slippery meaning with regards to regulation, so maybe we could agree on the following assertion:
--- Capitalism is an economic system that privileges private ownership over social intention ---
If that is acceptable, then I'd like to break it down from my perspective. My understanding of work has way more to do with (social) agency and (our) my ability to provide intentional value than it has to do navigating a bloated system that is undermined by corporate interests. Please note that I am most certainly not taking a cue from Europe on the economic situation in the U.S. as I think the landscape (literally) is a bit different.
If Capitalism can be demarcated by privileging private ownership and enterprise over social intention, I believe the value proposition is that the nature of competition will create social value (jobs that give people money to eat) as a side effect of producing and distributing "innovative" products that speak to social desires. (demand). If the company cannot be competitive, perhaps there is no demand, or they can't pay well, then it's accepted that the company probably shouldn't exist.
There is also a strong notion of individual agency, in which a motivated go-getter can work hard and do well for themselves and their family.
So, I think it's fair to say that the virtuous parts of Capitalism are the idea that anyone can pull themselves out of poverty, and the mechanic of self regulation, which speaks to the ability for Capitalism to eventually meet social intention in a roundabout way.
My assertion is that mechanic of Capitalism (competition) might eventually meet social intention eventually at first through the virtue of self regulation, but the further it drifts, the harder it this becomes.
Of course, we can slap some government, social welfare, and regulatory committees on it, so now social intention (which absolutely should be exercised by meaningful work) becomes contingent on voting every so often.
Meanwhile, wealth is aggregated into the top 10% or 1% of the population, and since people are not perfect, we end up with laws like money is considered free speech, so private interests end up having a dominant say in legislation. It is not surprising that the U.S. has a wildly polarized 2 party culture, when considering how bad the current system is for both parties.
If we have more of our individual agency deferred to government, then we have more taxes and less freedom. If we don't, people starve and/or literally die.
This mechanic is absolutely a double bind with no apparent answer, aside from rethinking the mechanic of the original value proposition.
I like paying taxes for streets and schools and welfare, even though I don't have kids. I don't like paying taxes to bail out large corporations and banks who (with the government's help) reduce our social agency in the first place. So yeah, one is not theft, but think the other absolutely is.
Contingency on government for social intention in a place where hostage politics, voter suppression, and gerrymandering are very *real* things, is not a good thing.
So in all, the critique is largely against the "effects" of advanced capitalism, but also the "competitive mechanic" that allowed it to get that way in the first place.
I don't think a collective mechanic like open source is the answer either, unless developers start privileging GPL.
> I wasn't aware that Socialism was sort of all or nothing
But it is, socialism is when there is no private ownership of the means of production, that is core to it. Europe has social democracy combined with capitalism, there is no socialism there. Social democracy has nothing to do with socialism, they are completely different concepts.
Edit: Some social democracy might stem from socialist movements, but there is none of that left today. No part of Europe is moving towards socialism, they are all happily capitalist with a majority of their economies being in the private sector.
Social democracy is mainly about the government serving the people and ensuring everyone gets to live a decent life. So health care, social security etc. The same thing USA does but a bit more. It doesn't have anything to do with the means of production except trying to ensure that the system serves the people.
But it is, socialism is when there is no private ownership of the means of production, that is core to it. Europe has social democracy combined with capitalism, there is no socialism there. Social democracy has nothing to do with socialism, they are completely different concepts.
Edit: Some social democracy might stem from socialist movements, but there is none of that left today. No part of Europe is moving towards socialism, they are all happily capitalist with a majority of their economies being in the private sector.
Social democracy is mainly about the government serving the people and ensuring everyone gets to live a decent life. So health care, social security etc. The same thing USA does but a bit more. It doesn't have anything to do with the means of production except trying to ensure that the system serves the people.
To add to your comment, eastern Europe used to have socialism and it was very different from what we see today. Most people who were alive at that time don't have good memories about it.
> Capitalism is the idea of the market regulating itself, no?
No, that's anarcho-capitalism.
No, that's anarcho-capitalism.
[deleted]
Are you saying unregulated capitalism will not result in monopolies? If so - thats a pretty bold statement. Would love to see some evidence :)
Where did I say that? On the contrary, regulations are often needed to ensure free markets.
One could interpret “Capitalism doesn't inherently create monopolies.” like that. :)
It can be interpreted that way if you don't know the difference between capitalism and anarcho-capitalism, which seems to be oddly common on the internet.
I do believe its quite controversial to equate Regulated Capitalism with “Capitalism”. Ime. the opposite is more often true. (We do, however, agree on the necessity of properly regulated markets) :)
I'm not equating them. Regulated capitalism, just like unregulated, is a subset of capitalism.
Free Software as a political movement maybe is somewhat anti-capitalist, wanting useful software to be shared and companies to have less control in practice.
Open Source however is like Free Software but made appealing to self-interested companies by convincing them sharing their software efforts can be mutually beneficial. It is no more anti-capitalist than having all the property owners in a capitalist society agree they are better off paying taxes and having a state to defend them from external threats instead of everyone having their private military.
Open Source however is like Free Software but made appealing to self-interested companies by convincing them sharing their software efforts can be mutually beneficial. It is no more anti-capitalist than having all the property owners in a capitalist society agree they are better off paying taxes and having a state to defend them from external threats instead of everyone having their private military.
> I was just thinking the other day how strange it is that so many blindly defend capitalism but love open source. Those are inherently contradictory positions. Open source is inherently anti-capitalist.
Are they?
Open source is inherently anti-copyright, but copyright is not inherently capitalist. Copyright is a restraint on trade enforced by the sovereign.
Saying "open source is inherently anti-capitalist" looks similar to saying "smuggling is inherently anti-capitalist". The logic is not obvious.
Are they?
Open source is inherently anti-copyright, but copyright is not inherently capitalist. Copyright is a restraint on trade enforced by the sovereign.
Saying "open source is inherently anti-capitalist" looks similar to saying "smuggling is inherently anti-capitalist". The logic is not obvious.
Smuggling is just an illegal form of commerce.
I think by "copyright" you really mean "intellectual property" (of which copyright is one part). Open source is really unrelated to IP. Open source has its own licenses and constraints just like proprietary software. Like I can make an open source H265 decoder but I could still get sued for violating MPAA patents.
But here's the key point: proprietary software is wealth extraction. Wealth extraction is what capitalism really is. Collective action, often volunteered, creates a free alternative for something that you previously had to pay for, thus bypassing that enclosure and wealth extraction. That's why it's anti-capitalist.
I think by "copyright" you really mean "intellectual property" (of which copyright is one part). Open source is really unrelated to IP. Open source has its own licenses and constraints just like proprietary software. Like I can make an open source H265 decoder but I could still get sued for violating MPAA patents.
But here's the key point: proprietary software is wealth extraction. Wealth extraction is what capitalism really is. Collective action, often volunteered, creates a free alternative for something that you previously had to pay for, thus bypassing that enclosure and wealth extraction. That's why it's anti-capitalist.
> Wealth extraction is what capitalism really is.
You might want to find a definition that allows you to converse with other people. It is generally not productive to assign your own personal meanings to words in common use.
> Open source is really unrelated to IP.
Why do you think open source takes the form of copyright licenses? Open source is a reaction against copyright, which puts the software back in the state you'd find it in if there were no copyright laws. It's not unrelated to IP; it is defined entirely by reference to IP law.
You might want to find a definition that allows you to converse with other people. It is generally not productive to assign your own personal meanings to words in common use.
> Open source is really unrelated to IP.
Why do you think open source takes the form of copyright licenses? Open source is a reaction against copyright, which puts the software back in the state you'd find it in if there were no copyright laws. It's not unrelated to IP; it is defined entirely by reference to IP law.
My definition of capitalism is the accepted one. The problem I find is that most people who defend capitalism don't know what it is. Most people will reach for some definition relating to markets or supply and demand. All of those things existed before capitalism and are unrelated to it.
Previously we had feudalism. Monarchs ruled, typically through the divine right of kings, which was really just military might. Monarchs would have one or more levels of vassals who owned land in exchange for providing troops, food and/or resources to their feudal lord of king. At the bottom were serfs who needed to eat. Lords owned the land . In exchange for use of the land, serfs would grow food and provide food (and possibly military service) to their lords.
In Marxist terms, the lords exploited the excess value of labor.
By the end of the fedual era, produce was often sold and the serf owed his or her lord a payment, which was basically taxation.
Capitalism is the exact same system except that instead of lords and kings we have capital owners. They fulfil the same function: exploiting and extracting the surplus value of labor. "Profit" is surplus labor value.
There is no value without labor.
Previously we had feudalism. Monarchs ruled, typically through the divine right of kings, which was really just military might. Monarchs would have one or more levels of vassals who owned land in exchange for providing troops, food and/or resources to their feudal lord of king. At the bottom were serfs who needed to eat. Lords owned the land . In exchange for use of the land, serfs would grow food and provide food (and possibly military service) to their lords.
In Marxist terms, the lords exploited the excess value of labor.
By the end of the fedual era, produce was often sold and the serf owed his or her lord a payment, which was basically taxation.
Capitalism is the exact same system except that instead of lords and kings we have capital owners. They fulfil the same function: exploiting and extracting the surplus value of labor. "Profit" is surplus labor value.
There is no value without labor.
> My definition of capitalism is the accepted one
Yeah, no. That would fly in the face of feudalism, mercantilism, socialism and communism. All of those are economic systems based on who owns the means of production. If your definition of capitalism isn't coherent with all of those, then it's not a correct one.
Yeah, no. That would fly in the face of feudalism, mercantilism, socialism and communism. All of those are economic systems based on who owns the means of production. If your definition of capitalism isn't coherent with all of those, then it's not a correct one.
> That would fly in the face of feudalism, mercantilism, socialism and communism. All of those are economic systems based on who owns the means of production.
That's definitional for communism, but mercantilism? I understand mercantilism to be a policy focused on ensuring that national imports of gold exceed national gold exports, and feudalism to be mostly distinguished by the inability to sell land.
(Alternatively, feudalism might be characterized by a very weak central state that has delegated the authority to rule (or that just never possessed such authority). But that's more of a view of the political structure than the economic structure.)
That's definitional for communism, but mercantilism? I understand mercantilism to be a policy focused on ensuring that national imports of gold exceed national gold exports, and feudalism to be mostly distinguished by the inability to sell land.
(Alternatively, feudalism might be characterized by a very weak central state that has delegated the authority to rule (or that just never possessed such authority). But that's more of a view of the political structure than the economic structure.)
> My definition of capitalism is the accepted one.
This is an interesting way to lead off your statement that capitalism is the same thing as feudalism.
This is an interesting way to lead off your statement that capitalism is the same thing as feudalism.
Not the same but similar in its extractive nature. A formal difference but equivalent outcome.
> Open source is inherently anti-capitalist.
It's mostly orthogonal to capitalism. At best, you can say that open source is against intellectual capitalism, in the form of intellectual property. This is not a position on the ownership of physical goods.
It's mostly orthogonal to capitalism. At best, you can say that open source is against intellectual capitalism, in the form of intellectual property. This is not a position on the ownership of physical goods.
Actually "open source", as we know it, can only exist in a capitalist framework.
Note that the government is there mostly to keep the capitalist system running. In an anarchistic society, for example, there would probably be no government, and they would therefore not need any software.
Capitalism is built around a concept of private ownership, and as such, the author of a work is reasonably free to use their work as they see fit. That allows for something like open source software to exist and not, for instance, be stolen or destroyed by others.
Also, I think we are far away from collectivism, because typically only very, very, few people actually work on software, let alone open source software.
Finally, capitalist companies use open source software a lot. It is just a very efficient way of dealing with software, and a great way to make profit, because production costs are terribly low.
Not defending capitalism here, just saying that it is slightly more involved, as always.
Capitalism is built around a concept of private ownership, and as such, the author of a work is reasonably free to use their work as they see fit. That allows for something like open source software to exist and not, for instance, be stolen or destroyed by others.
Also, I think we are far away from collectivism, because typically only very, very, few people actually work on software, let alone open source software.
Finally, capitalist companies use open source software a lot. It is just a very efficient way of dealing with software, and a great way to make profit, because production costs are terribly low.
Not defending capitalism here, just saying that it is slightly more involved, as always.
> Actually "open source", as we know it, can only exist in a capitalist framework.
That's not true at all. For one, there are more alternatives to capitalism than anarchy. Second, there are more users of open soruce than governments. Third, even though open source projects do have licenses and we have a legal system that enforces intellectual property, we've had very few court cases related to open source licenses because it's largely unnecessary. There's really no one to sue or be sued in an economically viable fashion. There's been very few cases. And you are largely free to fork an open source project that's happenedd many times.
> Also, I think we are far away from collectivism
Collectivism doesn't necessitate that everyone produces value.
> Finally, capitalist companies use open source software a lot. It is just a very efficient way of dealing with software
This goes to my point that collectivism can be a net benefit. The profit motive would want to build an enclosure around something like Linux and we'd all be worse off for it, companies included.
That's kind of the point.
That's not true at all. For one, there are more alternatives to capitalism than anarchy. Second, there are more users of open soruce than governments. Third, even though open source projects do have licenses and we have a legal system that enforces intellectual property, we've had very few court cases related to open source licenses because it's largely unnecessary. There's really no one to sue or be sued in an economically viable fashion. There's been very few cases. And you are largely free to fork an open source project that's happenedd many times.
> Also, I think we are far away from collectivism
Collectivism doesn't necessitate that everyone produces value.
> Finally, capitalist companies use open source software a lot. It is just a very efficient way of dealing with software
This goes to my point that collectivism can be a net benefit. The profit motive would want to build an enclosure around something like Linux and we'd all be worse off for it, companies included.
That's kind of the point.
[deleted]
It's a creator of wealth also from a capitalist perspective. When you get something for free you can spend your money on other things.
It's only not a creator of wealth for merchantilist software companies that peddle something with less value.
It's only not a creator of wealth for merchantilist software companies that peddle something with less value.
It’s been 20 years of well-intended governmental initiatives to reinvent the text editor and waste millions of taxpayer money.
What’s the end goal? What are we trying to achieve here?
What’s the end goal? What are we trying to achieve here?
This is one thing that germany does right and should be adopted through ought the eu. It’s one of the rare reasons i think germany should use its diktats to steer all eu governments into using open source.
The Uk on the other hand, now that it’s #out and took “are” country back will likely mandate spyware installed by default and “you’re” data made available to corpos by law - cctv installed in your homes by default and perhaps speakers to announce the great achievements of whoever the unelected prime minister of the time is.
The Uk on the other hand, now that it’s #out and took “are” country back will likely mandate spyware installed by default and “you’re” data made available to corpos by law - cctv installed in your homes by default and perhaps speakers to announce the great achievements of whoever the unelected prime minister of the time is.
The problem is they are chasing a 1990s vision of computing, office suites in particular. They're just creating more silos. By this point, they should be working with data and schemas, not documents. Documents are just a by product. Open Source has an embarrassing tendency to think this 1990s vision of a desktop & office suite is an end point, but it's just a distraction Microsoft will always dominate. Open Source would have been better off trying to create a futuristic 3270 but more seriously taking the Web design to heart (including Linked Data).
People are just not that good at organizing in groups and information is too diverse to leave to individuals to categorize in blobby programs with arbitrary fields in hierarchical files and folders, so inconsistency and disconnected work is the result. This is at the height of its bad in government. Now we are at the point where AI can serve as a connector, with careful use (it would have been much better if organizing data had been the main priority of people). For example, referenced documents created by AI on data with a final group review, the perfect use case of efficient and effective AI integration. But Microsoft is at the top of that heap, in terms of information capture (even if it's not accessed by them directly), capability and authority. Meanwhile Open Source is still talking about a new desktop music player and how to use grep.
People are just not that good at organizing in groups and information is too diverse to leave to individuals to categorize in blobby programs with arbitrary fields in hierarchical files and folders, so inconsistency and disconnected work is the result. This is at the height of its bad in government. Now we are at the point where AI can serve as a connector, with careful use (it would have been much better if organizing data had been the main priority of people). For example, referenced documents created by AI on data with a final group review, the perfect use case of efficient and effective AI integration. But Microsoft is at the top of that heap, in terms of information capture (even if it's not accessed by them directly), capability and authority. Meanwhile Open Source is still talking about a new desktop music player and how to use grep.
I'm very curious how this will work for them. It's quite a struggle to adopt OSS where the vast majority of users think "Office suite" == "M$ Office".
[1] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LiMux