this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2026
226 points (95.9% liked)

Free and Open Source Software

22147 readers
140 users here now

If it's free and open source and it's also software, it can be discussed here. Subcommunity of Technology.


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

This thought came to me in the shower today. Open source checks most of the boxes. It is a collaborative, worker owned (develloper-owned) project, that tries to flatten hierarchy. Especially if you look at something like Debian ), which really tries to have a bottom-up structure.
Of course, there are exceptions, considering there are a lot of corporate open-source projects, that are not democratically maintained and clearly only serve the interest of the company, who created it (like chromium for example).
So I am mainly talking about community-oriented FOSS projects here.
And if you were to agree with my statement, would you say that developing FOSS software is advancing the goals of the anarchist / communist project, because it is laying the groundwork infrastructure needed for a new kind of economy and society?
Thought this could be an interesting discussion!

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 73 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Honestly, yes, I think it's one of the best examples of anarchism in action the world has ever seen. And an especially pertinent example to point out to those who'd say things like, "Why would anyone do work or innovate without a profit motive?" Lots of good and innovative software, made without any profit incentive by a collective of people who are working on it just because they want to and they enjoy it.

[–] flora_explora@beehaw.org 19 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I spent hours every day either taking pictures of organisms or identifying them online, just for the sake of it and without financial reimbursement. People who say you need a profit motive to do work are just passionless and detached from the world...

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 16 points 2 weeks ago

People who say you need a profit motive to do work are just passionless and detached from the world…

You might even say they're feeling alienated, as a certain German economist might say.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 10 points 2 weeks ago

Meanwhile we have many capitalist groups stifling innovation in the name of profit. It's more profitable for them to prevent competition than to compete for the best product.

[–] Mynameisallen@lemmy.zip 41 points 2 weeks ago

Yes, as an anarchist I regularly point to FOSS as a plausible example of it working

[–] its_kim_love@lemmy.blahaj.zone 30 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It can definitely be a form of praxis.

[–] DeckPacker@piefed.blahaj.zone 14 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Sorry for being a bit of an idiot, but what is praxis?

[–] its_kim_love@lemmy.blahaj.zone 27 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The textbook definition would be the application of theory to action. It's basically leftist slang for putting the theories of socialism/communism/humanism into practice in a real way.

[–] DeckPacker@piefed.blahaj.zone 10 points 2 weeks ago

Alright, thanks ;)

[–] Kirk@startrek.website 25 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

Cory Doctorow has a novel "Walkaway" which is basically "what if society but FOSS". It's really good!

To answer your question, while it has a lot in common with anarchism I don't think anyone benefits from trying to fit it into a predefined political box. It's something new.

[–] DeckPacker@piefed.blahaj.zone 9 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Wow, I didn't think, I would get such an interesting book recommendation out of this. Thank you so much!

[–] Kirk@startrek.website 7 points 2 weeks ago

My pleasure! It kind of reminds me of Snow Crash in that it's really fun and adventurous but also made me think deep thoughts.

[–] cecilkorik@piefed.ca 5 points 2 weeks ago

Cory Doctorow is prolific and has written a ton of other great and highly interesting stuff as well. He's a very intelligent fellow.

[–] eleijeep@piefed.social 4 points 2 weeks ago

It's a great book, and very relevant.

[–] PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S@lemmy.sdf.org 22 points 2 weeks ago

Open source is not literally communism, but I do think it's one of the best examples to demonstrate that anarcho-communism is plausible.

[–] rimu@piefed.social 18 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Only if you use GPL, not MIT.

[–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

I think MIT is anarchistic license. You can do whatever the fuck you want with it, but for this shit to work for both of us, you really should collaborate

Further, GPL relies on enforcement from an authority on copyrights, which is exactly the opposite of what anarchists suggest

[–] rimu@piefed.social 14 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yes although what tends to happen is the capitalists just take MIT licenced code and make bank off it.

This is all moot now that LLMs can launder the code anyway.

[–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah we do live in a capitalist world

[–] matsdis@piefed.social 4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

You obviously want WTFPL instead of MIT for that.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ati@piefed.social 14 points 2 weeks ago

It's an observation of Marx, I think correct, that society organises in a manner aligned around the means of production. Agrarian -> feudal, industrial -> capitalist etc. I think the essential distinguishing feature of software vs capital goods is that software can be copied without the loss of the original. Hence I think the concept of ownership fails and the mode of production becomes anarchist.

[–] sanzky@beehaw.org 9 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I think FOSS enable those kind of communities but I don’t think FOSS as a concept is any of those things. those communities could equally work with a non FOSS license (eg one that prevents commercial use or a license that allow usage only by members of a specific community). They uses existing licenses because they go momentum and have legal precedents that allows people to defend their rights.

Most FOSS licenses were specifically designed to allow profiting from the wok of others, even the GPL. Just see how many billion dollar companies (think Azure, AWS, etc) profit from projects without giving anything back.

[–] for_some_delta@beehaw.org 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I consider FOSS a step toward prefiguring an anarchy.

Current source control management systems however perpetuate heirarchies with roles such as maintainer and developer with different permissions. I like to keep the permissions similar for roles. I might take away foot guns like force push from developers.

Another problem limiting anarchy is consensus. Getting agreement from everyone effected is still not quite there in the merge request process.

[–] unknowing8343@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 2 weeks ago

But you can fork it and make your own thing. Standard hierarchy has much more power over resources. Git's hierarchy is almost simbolic.

[–] Cris_Citrus@piefed.zip 7 points 2 weeks ago

I often think of community run open source free license software projects as an example of communalism, personally. Maybe when I learn about more forms of anarchism and socialism there will be other ideas that feel more apt to describe it

[–] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 7 points 2 weeks ago

Fuck yea! I'm not those dumb tear down the government people, I'm the make it redundant pragmatic people. I will go as close to my ideal state as possible.

[–] driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br 7 points 2 weeks ago

I was introduced to communism/socialism through Linux.

[–] its_me_xiphos@beehaw.org 7 points 2 weeks ago

I'm going with communalism. And its even simpler. A group of like minded people wanting to be creative nd share creativity without monetization. Seems more akin to artist movements to me. And I'm all for it.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

It's a non-market way of doing things, so sure it fits the definition, but labels are dumb, and the people who really like labels are worse.

You'll also notice that you still have to pay for whatever device Linux goes on, which is a strong hint about the economics at play.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Wildmimic@anarchist.nexus 5 points 2 weeks ago

I think it's more of a socialist mindset that is spreading with FOSS, because it focuses it's workings on the common good, Most FOSS projects can be named socialist by nature; they encourage working together to create something bigger, something that doesn't let the small guy fall through the created network. I believe a lot of anarchistic workings are socialist at their core, and FOSS is an embodiment of these workings.

[–] monad@anarchist.nexus 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Not Communism in a political sense. More like community based, friendly software.

Open Source as in transparent or non proprietary.

[–] ResistingArrest@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 weeks ago

There are some people who are in it for what you've listed (flattened hierarchy, worker owned, etc) but there are others who are in it for personal ownership and control, which may align better w/ a libertarian set of values, but you're not wrong about the ancom aspects

[–] MerryJaneDoe@beehaw.org 4 points 2 weeks ago

Not really.

I compare it more to fan fiction and amateur writing. Some is a great read, much better than the garbage you might find on NYT's best seller list. Very talented people doing what they love and trying to be of service to others along the way. FOSS often seems more of a passion project for the creator(s) than an anarchist/communist project, IMHO - although there are obvious parallels.

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Most of the systems that enslave us run on linux.

[–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Most systems that enslave us runs on electricity, and cruelty, and malice, and the will to dominate all life.

- galadriel or something

[–] Ice@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I do not.

FOSS is the natural conclusion of public code having a negligible cost to supply once it has been produced. Ideally it takes IP out of the equation and allocates compensation towards development rather than rent extraction.

FOSS is a question of centralization & authority vs decentralization & freedom.

[–] p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 weeks ago

It's what happens when copyright gets extended to infinity with no useful public domain to speak of. And then they will force you to rent the shit out of the copyright with a monthly subscription.

Linux runs on billions of devices. Every device with a microprocessor, except for the tiny portion of desktops, would be useless hunks of garbage without Linux. And Linux would not have those numbers if it wasn't FOSS. The internet would be a shell of its current self without FOSS and Linux.

The world needs FOSS, and quite frankly, it's a direct counterbalance to the invasive force of capitalism. Anybody who think the GPL isn't political clearly hasn't read anything its creators wrote.

[–] Cekan14@lemmy.org 3 points 2 weeks ago

Yep, and that's why I use it.

[–] Gork@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 weeks ago

In Soviet Russia, code programs you!

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

A lot of value in capitalism comes from uncompensated work. I don't consider it communism as much as protecting work from exploitation.

[–] DeckPacker@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Isn't protecting workers from exploration on of the core goals of communism?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›