>>11934>Not necessarily, capital-goods also have production and a labor cost associated with it
capital goods are commodities in capitalism lol
it's one of its fundamental characteristics
>The Software as the 1s and 0s stored on a computer it self is not the commodity, the commodity is direction over the creation of the software.
commodity is an item of ownership that gets sold
your apartment that you rent is a commodity
the movie you rent is a commodity
>The people who pay for a software commodity are directing what software gets created.
voting with your wallet huh? I remember when people have voted for the new UI in windows vista lol
>Like with crowd funding.
do you really think that your donations to open-source entitle you to *anything*?
your donations are just that - donations, no strings attached
way to be a little entitled bitch
want to "direct"? get involved - contribute, maintain, bug report
>Once a piece of software is created it has almost 0 exchange value in a market with competing producers because that is determined by the cost of reproduction
Costs of reproduction include the initial investment and R&D costs, it's not just the marginal cost of the next item lol
>If you install your Linux-distro and navigate to the software-shop/app-hub/package-manager (what ever thing installs new programs), it should offer you a market place where you can help fund new software projects and partially completed ones.
first time I hear about this, is this an ubuntu thing?
but then again, I install my programs from the command line..
>The programs that have already been produced would serve as proof of skill for the software devs.
I try to contribute to programs that I personally use. Not with money, but with actual effort.
>That is incorrect in a theoretic perfect market with perfect competition, market prices would exactly equal labor values required to reproduce a commodity.
yep, my bad
>Exchange value in a market is determined by the cost of reproduction, not the cost of production. If market prices were determined by the cost of production that would mean capitalists could raise their prices if they use more labor to produce something at higher cost.
The same thing. Cost of reproduction - the average cost of production in an industry. That's why individual capitalists can't voluntary raise the prices as their costs rise.
>You can't actually buy proprietary software.
you obviously can
>If you read the fine-print on any of them they always say that you only pay for a user-license.
rented item is a commodity
>You pay for a license-key that grants you the use of windows, you're not buying windows
no shit mr obvious
ownership is a social relation, it is not inherent in the tangible goods
>If you buy a commodity you have control over it.
you phone is a "commodity" as you define it
you don't control shit
just as you didn't control your radio receiver in the past
>If you charge rent to access something, it's not a commodity it's capital.
you telling me telephone network is not a commodity? you electric power grid?
Capital good is defined by its relation to the production process. Not whether it is rented or not.
>Like those new electric cars where you have to pay a subscription for features like a seat-warmer, better acceleration or more battery range, those cars are not commodities either, those cars are capital owned and controlled by the car company.
services are not commodities now and not "proper capitalism" lol
>You did not participate in commodity exchange if you don't control the thing you bought.
petty bourgeois idealism
>I consider free-software to retain elements of market competition. For example the Linux software eco-system has lots of competing linux distributions
how are they "competing"?
you wanna tell me gentoo is competing with arch? lol
people compete for "something", usually for some wealth gain, directly or by proxy
the only case you can make is - they are competing for donations or corporate money
I can't think of even one open-source project that has this modus operandi
even ubuntu is now balls deep into servers and IoT and this is where it makes money
fedora is just a testing ground for redhat
opensuse is the same for suse
others are doing their own thing not chasing "customers"
>The reason for this is that proprietary software is based on an intellectual distribution monopoly.
more petty bourgeois idealisms
any property right is a state granted monopoly>>11935>I'd argue that personal property predates state-structures and probably originated in late stage tribal-society, so that's technically not true.
property is a social relation
it's relation not to inanimate objects, but to other people
no property right if there are no people around
>And a distribution monopoly is not the same as private property, even if both are granted by the state.
you just invented your "distribution monopoly" as different from the "proper" property
newsflash, every property right is a monopoly>>11936>the gpl doesn't punish the motion towards more FOSS software therefor it can't be characterized by punishment
GPL is a restrictive license. It prohibits under the threat of legal action, under the threat of force.
That's why it is classifieds as "non-free"
It restricts the freedom of the developer to do what he wants with his modifications under the threat of force.
>I would argue that the gpl is the license that is best at protecting freedoms so it's got to be the most free.
you are free to argue your case on the debian mailing list, you will not be the first
this horse has been beaten to death already