> What I find troubling about FOSS is its tendency to *devalue* or erase the
> existence of labor, it's tendency to further obscure the role of labor in
> creating something. I cannot see how this is valuable or a contribution to
> our goals as socialist (heavy users of Marx :) (BTW, I'd like to extend my
> thesis here, so if anyone knows of a publication outlet that might be
> interested, ping me.)
At the risk of getting all GNU/Linux-y, I think one big problem is lumping free and open source software together. It's one of those prickly bits that Stallman turns out right to be pendantic about, and the items you quote illustrate this nicely. For example, the "Free Software Magazine" advertises software that doesn't appear to be free-libre, something the FSF people would find an anathma. Unsurprisingly, the FSF and GNU websites don't appear to link it. Should they also be held responsible for the FREEE-WHEEEE blogger's confusion?
Stallman has been explicit about the unpaid volunteer aspects being subordinate -- actually irrelevant -- to the freedoms of using, modifying and distributing the software. He is also explicit about it being ok to sell and make money off of it (which some leftists no doubt take as a sign of bad intent). There's plenty of interest in the spontaneous and unpaid nature of contributions (such as in Eben Moglen's essays), and I do think that's worth contemplating, but that is not the point of the enterprise, and it isn't even peculiar to free-libre or open source software.
Stallman's purist insistence on being precise appears to be justified by all the misconceptions of what he's after. Holding him and the FSF responsible for those misconceptions is a bit like blaming Marx for some people's associating him with totalitarianism.
-- Andy