excerpt : What would it mean to assert that economic productivity can be a social contribution only if its results can be shared?

[Dante-Gabryell Monson]

extract pasted below of pdf added in attachment -

reference :

Hacking ideologies, part 2: Open Source, a capitalist movement
Free Software, Free Drugs and an ethics of death
(by Toni Prug, to...@irational.org)
Written as a 24c3 event proposal. Based on an unpublished dissertation available at
http://rabelais.socialtools.net/FreeSoftware.ToniPrug.Aug2007.pdf


GNU manifesto applied: punishment for capitalists?

      food, shelter, health, education, labour

from GNU manifesto:

"Don't programmers deserve a reward for their creativity? If anything
deserves a reward, it is social contribution. Creativity can be a
social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to use the
results. If programmers deserve to be rewarded for creating innovative
programs, by the same token they deserve to be punished if they
restrict the use of these programs."

Consider applying this to the economy. What would it mean to assert
that economic productivity can be a social contribution only if its
results can be shared? It is already shared, many would say: one gets
a salary for one's work. This would not satisfy FS criteria. If we
narrow down the concept of economic productivity to food, shelter,
health, education - conclusion could be that capitalists restrict use
of the above elements by subverting them into closed, private wealth
generation schemes. And hence, deserve punishment.