This thought experiment isn't a complete answer, but it's not irrelevant either.
In the US and specifically Silicon Valley, they got a check for $100,000-ish to help them in the early years. In most any other country (or even most other parts of the US), that money wouldn't have been available to 2 unknown people, regardless of how smart they were.
That's not the only piece of the puzzle, but it's significant.
For example, Linus went to a university in Finland, it was free so he stayed there for 8 years or so. If he was in the US at the time, would he have had the time and freedom to work on a Free kernel full time? He would probably be in a deep debt like most students.
The point being, there are many other things that other countries have that America doesn't have.
RMS talks about valuing "community and freedom" over "features". That's pretty much what the "communism" ideal is all about, right?
Not saying GNU is communist, that's very taboo, but the ideals and motivation are definitely not "very American".
Fortunately, however, the source code is not aware of this.
The whole point of the GPL is to prevent people from "sealing away" the source code and favor commercial gains over the hacker community.
I view capitalism as "valuing money above all things". Don't confuse capitalism with the free market; the free market existed over a thousand years ago. Many people got rich through trade. Perhaps not in Europe (I don't know).
That's nice, but it means that no one can communicate with you because they agree that it means something else.
So? That doesn't imply that your definition of capitalism is correct.
> it's not exclusive to North America,
No one said that capitalism was exclusive to NA, was invented by Europe, or is new.
That said, capitalism isn't binary - it's a range and you left out important details.
For example, what does "allowing" mean? What people? What stuff?
The standard definition, cribbed from Wikipedia is "Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for a private profit; decisions regarding supply, demand, price, distribution, and investments are made by private actors in the market".
GNU and the FSF were born because this model was deemed unethical by RMS and many who basically agree with him.
> GNU and the FSF were born because this model was deemed unethical by RMS and many who basically agree with him.
Actually, free software is owned and controlled by its creators. They determine the terms and if you don't like those terms, you don't get to use it.
You seem to think that "control" implies a particular class of terms. It doesn't. Control is actually the ability fo the creator to choose whatever terms she likes.
BTW - RMS is an American and got his seed funding from Americans....
It works in exactly the same manner that Western academia has for much of its recent existence, in which discoveries are published, shared, collaborated on, and built on, albeit at a pace much accelerated by the ability to collaborate in real-time over the Internet, instead of having to wait for the publication of monthly journal articles and expensive lab experimentations (like the LHC).
Just because the people involved in FOSS are not doing this directly for money does not mean they're giving away the fruit of their labor for free, or being coerced as Soviet Communism was known for. While creating things that directly improve their own lives (scratching their own itches), they also gain the opportunity to spend their lives living their passion doing stimulating work, gain recognition amongst a group of peers spread all around the world, become known as experts in their field (leading to paying gigs from commercial outfits), and create things with the potential to advance the human race and make the world a better place. All of it 100% voluntarily, uncoerced. If that's not Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, I don't know what is.
Go reread what Ayn Rand says about trading value for value. Whether you're trading the fruits of your labor and talent for money, or for something else of value to you, either fits just fine with her philosophy. Ultimately, she was an advocate for the creation and fair exchange of value and real wealth, of which money is just a store, and without coercion. There is absolutely nothing about FOSS that is incompatible with her beliefs.
This is one of the biggest problems with the Conservative movement these days, a misunderstanding and misapplication of their own ideology. Too many seem to have merely a superficial understanding of it, a worldview that if corporations, direct profit motive, and consistent % improvements in quarterly statements aren't the driving force behind something then it can only be the antithesis of Truth, Justice, and the American Way. Be it FOSS, Net Neutrality, movements to reduce corporate spending in politics, if corporations are against it or orthogonal to it, then it must be anti-American.
Einstein once advised that 'everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.' I think the right would do well to reconsider their world view with that in mind.
> Just because the people involved in FOSS are not doing this directly for money does not mean they're giving away the fruit of their labor for free, or being coerced as Soviet Communism was known for
Read my reply to PG. I wasn't trying to imply that GNU has any similarity to the USSR; that's very silly.
I actually support the ideals of GNU, but I'm not ideological about it. I'm fine with selling closed software, so long as one is not just leeching off open source without contributing anything back.
The fact he made sacrifices instead of making billions to develop software is a proof of my point about GNU being very far from the ideas of capitalism.
I am not from America, but looking from afar I often get sick of the crude anti-Americanism that seems to get an intellectual free pass all the time. What can be more American than high level science? Given the endless Nobel prizes and technical innovations of the USA I'd think you could point to the AI lab at MIT as being a good symbol (among many) for the American contributions to science. It's ultimately American. Smack bang in the middle of the one of the first states which has always been an intellectual powerhouse mirroring the parts of England from which its settlers first came. A place which also bears the name "the Cradle of Liberty" with many political triumphs. The "blue states", as a reductionist might call them, don't play themselves up to us in the rest of the world, or domestically, as often as they perhaps should; that doesn't mean they aren't powerful or haven't changed the world in massive ways. And more than just residing in a center of American liberty and intellectual achievement Stallman used a clever legal document to do it. Lawyer jokes aside, using the beautiful common law system to protect rights, what could be more American? Starting a revolution rather than play along with it when someone gets up in your face and starts messing with your lifestyle. Tell me which country fits that description better than the USA. Yes, there is more than one America, there is Wallstreet and the Ayn Rand impulse you point to. I am not denying those exist, but don't try to claim them as being the only America or claim that they are the summation of one of the most important countries (perhaps "the most important country") in the history of human civilization. Stallman is as American as apple pie.
Stallman isn't just pursuing his own lifestyle, he think his lifestyle is the only valid lifestyle. OK, not exactly, but when it comes to "Free Software", he basically thinks his point of view is pretty much the only ethically acceptable one, and any attempt to make propriety software is unethical. He never intended for any part of GNU to be used in propriety software, although sometimes GNU programs get shipped with closed systems (I believe some parts of the GNU user-land get shipped with OS X).
So, people who disagree with him (by opinion and by action) end up benefiting from his work, but he never actually intended that, and he would always try to circumvent that when ever possible, see: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html
"What's American?" is somewhat a philosophical question, but in this context, I'm referring mainly to the part of mainstream America that encourages collecting large sums of wealth for creating technology.
> What can be more American than high level science?
Science is much, much older than America, and scientific research exists in many places throughout the world.
> I'd think you could point to the AI lab at MIT as being a good symbol (among many) for the American contributions to science.
It is. "America contributes a lot to science" is one thing, but "science is American" is a completely different thing.
I'm actually sick of all the good things being attributed to America. On the international stage, America, as a country, is the biggest bully.
> Starting a revolution rather than play along with it when someone gets up in your face and starts messing with your lifestyle.
Funny, because when other people do that, they're called "terrorists".
Actually, "sacrificing yourself" for what you believe in is very American.
You seem to think that America is a specific class of alternatives. It isn't. It's the freedom to make the choices that you prefer.
At the time Google started up, Yahoo! was the biggest (IIRC, it was a long time ago). Both were American companies and both initially targeted the US (I distinctly remember using Google and finding it crap for UK-specific stuff, so went back to flitting between Lycos and Altavista.
Had Google started up in Cambridge or Oxford, I imagine they would've targeted the UK and possibly Europe initially, focusing on different search patterns, different promotional strategies and so on. They may well have been intimidated by Yahoo in some respects but would've seen an opportunity to attack Yahoo's poor local search.
Had they have started in China they could've been Baidu.cn.
Of course, all this is academic but an interesting thought experiment nonetheless.
I think if Google started in the US at the same time as a UK search engine, the UK engine would've been more reliant on the UK market and would've seen slower growth once there's initial traction, but Google's search domination isn't completely global.
Does the Silicon Valley produce anything remotely close to Japanese Anime? Do Americans produce cars that are anywhere close to German or Japanese cars? Do Americans produce desserts that are anywhere near in quality to European desserts? There are many things that Americans are simply horrible at doing.