Las cursivas son mías (//) "Open Source does not, however, demand that the open license is attached to derivatives of the original code. By removing the 'viral' feature of GPL, Open Source provides firms with a back-door for appropiating code. Software licensed under Open Source can re 'ripped, mixed, and burned' and released under copyright. That is how Mozilla Public License was intended to work for Netscape. This is what repeatedly happens with software licensed under the term of the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) license. In Marxist terms, Open Source licenses can be described as an /organisational principle for systematising 'primitive accumulation', by which is meant theft, of the social labour/ taking place in developing communities and in the commons." (pp 37-38) "The ultimate prize for companies involved in the hacker movement is to engage a pool of gratis labour in one end of the balance sheet and to sell the output in the other end with no discount. It's a 'have-your-cake-and-eat-it' business model. If a company sets out to make money in this way it can't advertise its intent since most developers refuse to contribute to projects under such terms. Often it is pulled off as a one-off violation against the terms of the free license. Despite occasional baddies, most companies have come to the conclusion that they have more to gain in the long run by playing by the book. While this fact is a sigh of relief to FOSS project leaders, the same remark looks entirely different from a Marxist vantage point. /To a Marxist it suggests that a more systematic way of exploiting labour has been found./ Our critique must therefore not stop at the companies that violate the free licenses, or else we will fail to detect subtler forms of exploitation that sidesteps the direct point of sale." (pp 40) -- Salud! Nicolás Reynolds, xmpp:[email protected] omb:http://identi.ca/fauno blog:http://selfdandi.com.ar/ gnu/linux user #455044 http://librecultivo.org.ar http://parabolagnulinux.org