so, you're claiming that open source is actually some neophyte alternative economic system that will turn capitalism on its head?
I think it's important to flesh this out. I mean, if that much is at stake...What's more, it can be done; i've seen it before. What I mean is, if you really want to speak to leftists who are Marxists and Heavy Users of Marx, then you would need to explain why Marx's theory of how capitalism will be undone (cf., my recent discussion with Michael D.) is wrong-headed, and show how your theory, however inchoate it is in present form, is an advance.
======================
I would argue that open source is more a PC-age tweaking of old technocratic ideals than a full on advance over the dominant economic model.
Many technical adepts are very, very tired of monopolies that seek to create a perfect, airless vacuum in which nearly all tech/intellectual production occurs within the corporate, closed-source dome.
This is a major reason why rational people (as opposed to clueless flamethrowers) oppose Microsoft in general and, more broadly, efforts such as the recording industry's initiative to lock down music sales, distribution and consumption through digital means. There are many other examples.
Although this activity has acquired a patina of anti-capital rebellion - mostly due to the propaganda scare campaigns of Redmond and its fellow travelers - it falls, as far as I can see, well within the known spectrum of ideas that form American Capital's mythos - mavericks "adding value" by going against the grain and so on.
The celebrated value is technical meritocracy which shouldn't be stifled by corporate action backed by restrictive copyright law and other state/business imposed limitations.
The ideal state, for many open source enthusiasts, is Eric Raymond's "bazaar"
see <http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/ >
a place where data/ideas flow freely.
In a way, this is a newish spin on the concept of scientific community probably held in common by the Einstein/Szilard/Bohr generation of physicists. It's also, I suspect, an ideological cousin of ideas found within 1950's science fiction novels depicting future worlds of gleaming logic in which the best ideas always rise to the surface. No doubt, there are older and more varied examples available.
Like all solid theories - for example, Newton's laws of planetary motion - open source is perfectly fine up to a point. But like Newtonian physics, which falls apart once you turn your attention to the sub-atomic world, open source runs into trouble as a plan of action when its ideals are applied to the immense task of reforming (or, if you prefer, overturning) Capital.
A system of creating and maintaining technical and operational excellence through collective action can be just as easily absorbed into the system as anything else.
Witness IBM's large scale commitment to open source as expressed by Linux. IBM can continue to suck - as all such organizations do - and yet benefit from the open source system. I think of open source the way I do Saturn's moon Titan (which, if all goes well, we should be seeing much more of in a day): it's interesting, useful and potent in its way but in the end, it's an object orbiting a much more powerful body.
.d.