There are two things I think are important: credit and resource allocation. So a socialist solution would be more restrictive and allow someone to take the benefit of their work. If a group makes a project then that’s cool and good and they should get their flowers and people should generally be willing to give labor in exchange for it. You need a couple years to be like “yes, this is good, this is doing numbers for society. I’ve taken what I need to afford luxury, I’ve gotten my ELO gain. I will continue to monitor the open source space and move on to my next project.”
The limitations inherent to a more socialist resource allocation is when someone else could take that work, make it 10% better, and revolutionize industry or take us to the moon in respect to scientific advancement, scalability of industry, or automation. Like if someone made 90% Haber-Bosch process. If you’re in the later stages of communism and you could go “well, you’re going to be compensated with luxuries for this,” they don’t have to go back to scrubbing the proverbial toilet, and they are assuredly part of the narrative even after someone makes that 10% improvement (e.g. I can’t add the final 10% and call it the WDYMP Process) then I could see them being in the presence of justice as they are compelled to pass the torch without copyright protection.
But as I type this I realize I’m thinking a lot more about patents and inventions. If you published some kind of novel/entertainment product and someone started making a bunch of AI smut of your characters and you had no tool to tell them to piss off then it would be cringe. Beyond my wheel house because I would feel sad to see my characters be compelled into the public domain. But then again, my material conditions are like some Hasbro-Disney amalgam played by Chris Pratt completely missing the point and never having to ask my what my vision was - if I were in a less barbarous society people might do justice to my vision even if I don’t control it with an iron fist
There are two things I think are important: credit and resource allocation. So a socialist solution would be more restrictive and allow someone to take the benefit of their work. If a group makes a project then that’s cool and good and they should get their flowers and people should generally be willing to give labor in exchange for it. You need a couple years to be like “yes, this is good, this is doing numbers for society. I’ve taken what I need to afford luxury, I’ve gotten my ELO gain. I will continue to monitor the open source space and move on to my next project.”
The limitations inherent to a more socialist resource allocation is when someone else could take that work, make it 10% better, and revolutionize industry or take us to the moon in respect to scientific advancement, scalability of industry, or automation. Like if someone made 90% Haber-Bosch process. If you’re in the later stages of communism and you could go “well, you’re going to be compensated with luxuries for this,” they don’t have to go back to scrubbing the proverbial toilet, and they are assuredly part of the narrative even after someone makes that 10% improvement (e.g. I can’t add the final 10% and call it the WDYMP Process) then I could see them being in the presence of justice as they are compelled to pass the torch without copyright protection.
But as I type this I realize I’m thinking a lot more about patents and inventions. If you published some kind of novel/entertainment product and someone started making a bunch of AI smut of your characters and you had no tool to tell them to piss off then it would be cringe. Beyond my wheel house because I would feel sad to see my characters be compelled into the public domain. But then again, my material conditions are like some Hasbro-Disney amalgam played by Chris Pratt completely missing the point and never having to ask my what my vision was - if I were in a less barbarous society people might do justice to my vision even if I don’t control it with an iron fist