Message 02720 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT02720 Message: 1/8 L0 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

[ox-en] Free software entry on wiki


Who wrote this [1]? Why is it so inaccurate and, at a guess, ideologically 

For example, the section entitled 'Neither paid work nor subsistence' begins 
with the sentence fragment: "Because the producers of free products are not 
paid and usually don't want payment..." Where did that come from? According 
to Lakhani & Wolf, 40% of free software hackers are in some way paid to 
participate on their work [2]. I'd guess that very few hackers would ever 
*object* to being paid, so long as it didn't conflict with their (relative) 
productive autonomy.

The second sentence claims that most GNU/Linux distributions cost little more 
than the cost of production. Really? That's true of community-oriented 
distributions, and of third-party resellers who just ship burnt CDRs. But 
look at the major commercial distributors (Red Hat, Mandriva, Novell/SuSE, 
etc.)... they're all selling box sets with considerable markups.

The section 'Neither exchange nor gift' subscribes to the myth that "Free 
software and other free products are not objects of exchange". That's not 
true. More accurate would be that free software isn't solely and always an 
object of exchange; it often isn't produced as an object for exchange, but 
may nonetheless become a commodity.

I would spend ages correcting it all, but then it may just revert back. Before 
touching it, I'd prefer to know whether people in this community are serious 
about research or serious about putting forward a distorted Marxist 
interpretation of every aspect of free software theory?


[2] Pages 2, 9,

Please send personal emails to tom ... not lists ...
Contact: projekt

Thread: oxenT02720 Message: 1/8 L0 [In index]
Message 02720 [Homepage] [Navigation]