Fighter-bombers — Is FLOSS a self-own?

Location: Room 6 / Saal 6 https://38c3.c3nav.de/l/sos-6/@1,157.58,139.34,5 An honest provocation. Every flavor of "FLOSS" mode of software development is a libertarian/liberal pipe dream, largely incompatible with any flavor of red-star struggle. The 90's "Fuck off, Micro$oft!" FLOSS ubiquitous leitmotiv, born of pure anticapitalist rage, is now largely nostalgia, isolated to echoes within specific insular communities. Anyway, a call to somehow "just reinvigorate a critical element to FLOSS" is likely flawed. As now every contemporary corporation within the imperial core appropriates a generous portion of FLOSS software to accelerate, simplify and streamline its inevitably exploitative, destructive and antihumanistic pursuits, the proponents of sound and general economic advancement might want to seek to focus on the _political outcomes_ of the "FLOSS" mode of software development, rather than bicker about its _ideology_. So here is to a nice, quick & dirty investigation of free/libre/open-source software production, that aims to anchor in: * the unsurprising realization that within an asymmetric engagement, the trailing party benefits from shielding and exploiting unique opportunities at technical advancement ——— rather than give them up for cooption, as the stronger-actor will reap more benefit from their open utilization * the party with limited resources needs to use them more strategically and disciplined ——— not, to double-down on whimsical, uncoordinated, "horizontal" activity * that rather than streamlining the building of vampiric ideas by gift-wrapping the source code of every part ——— we should prefer to make them pay us to do it, each single time * that it was a better world for the hacker kind and in general when we were gangstering pirate Windows CDs and helping people steal MP3s ——— than the nerding around "open file formats" and "binary blobs". Friends don't let friends pay for Spotify subscriptions. Or TLDR: You wouldn't open source a fighter-bomber.