If I didn't make clear, I did point out that you acknowledged the scaleability problem. As for who has claimed it to be a challenge to capitalism, Tayssir, Chuck, and sharif in the following comments.
Tayssir pits anarchist production against capitalist using the term "modes of production". Similarly, Chuck see it as uniquely anarchist -- to which I have asked how is this anarchist production any different from claims about the anarchism of the invisible hand?
>On 12/6/06, Chuck <chuck at mutualaid.org> wrote:
>>The free software movement is essentially a big example of anarchism in
>>action. This was first pointed out in the late 90s and is more true
>>today given the ongoing developments in free/open source software. As
>>much as I've been burned by Wikipedia, I'll point out that it is very
>>much a successful example of collaborative anarchy.
>
>Yeah, in fact you can often see offtopic flamewars spontanously erupt
>about capitalist vs. anarchist modes of production (not in those fancy
>words, of course). There's at least one going on right now.
>http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/browse_frm/thread/74c79856f46e6071/83ce343cb93e9f48#83ce343cb93e9f48
>
>Interestingly, the central government types are completely absent.
>There's no one saying, "Well, replace copyright with straight gov't
>funding!"
>
>
>Tayssir
You can do a search on this in the archives. I used my own archives, so no link, but the context makes it clear that it's a claim about FOSS being a challenge to capitalism, one which Chuck is optimistic about because of its "prospects for radical social change."
>At 10:53 AM 12/7/2006, Chuck wrote:
>
>This is one of those reasons why I'm still optimistic about the prospects
>for radical social change. Things can change in ways that reflect your
>ideas, in ways tha you least expect.
>
>Chuck
sharif believes it is challenging the political economy of software and since software is central to the capitalist system, then it's a challenge:
>At 11:37 AM 1/23/2007, sharif islam wrote:
>>On 1/23/07, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>
>One of major ideas that is changing and challenging the political
>economy of software (which plays a influential role in the capitalist
>system) is the Free and Open source movement.
Chuck again:
>At 09:34 PM 1/23/2007, you wrote:
>>Angelus Novus wrote:
>>
>>>One important critique to make is that there really is
>>>nothing inherently anti-capitalist about Free
>>>Software/Open Source. Even to the originators of the
>>>term "Free Software," the freedom refers to the
>>>ability to modify source code, not necessarily to
>>>price. "free as in free speech, not free as in free
>>>beer" is a common formulation. Under the GNU Public
>>>License, there is nothing intended to keep you from
>>>charging a lsum of money for your free software
>>>program if you so wish.
>
>I disagree. I think that the Free Software Movement is an example of
>anarchism in action. I'm not the first person to point this out.
>
>I'm writing a paper about this. Not going to rehash arguments here that I
>had this weekend with the local Linux Users Group.
>
>Chuck
>Infoshop.org
sharif argues that the FOSS model might be developed in the pharmaceutical industry and I assume this is part and parcel with above view:
At 12:04 PM 1/24/2007, sharif islam wrote:
>On 1/24/07, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>
>>Which makes me wonder...could something like FOSS happen in any other
>>economic sector? How many things are like this?
There are some discussions on implementing a development model for pharmaceutical industry.
http://www.druid.dk/uploads/tx_picturedb/ds2004-1408.pdf
Bitch | Lab http://blog.pulpculture.org