Stallman

[^SaaS]: Acrónimo de "Software as a Service" \[Software como Servicio\],

         por ejemplo Facebook.

Further, in this contradictory framework we

observe nuanced changes not only in the institutional design concerning

the Internet but also in the used terminology. For instance, see the

shift from “free” to just “open source” software. The term

“open source” has become related to ideas and arguments based only

on practical values, such as having powerful software (Stallman 2012). As

Stallman (2012) writes: “the two terms describe almost the same category

of software, but they stand for views based on fundamentally different

values. Open source is a development methodology; free software is a

social movement.” The open source implies that non-free software is an

inferior solution to the practical problem at hand, whereas for the free

software advocates non-free software “is a social problem” (Stallman

2012). “If it's the same software (or nearly so), does it matter which

name you use?”, Stallman asks to answer, “yes, because different words

convey different ideas. While a free program by any other name would give

you the same freedom today, establishing freedom in a lasting way depends

above all on teaching people to value freedom.” We attempt to move from

Further, in this contradictory framework we observe nuanced changes

not only in the institutional design concerning the Internet but also

in the used terminology. For instance, see the shift from “free” to

just “open source” software. The term “open source” has become related

to ideas and arguments based only on practical values, such as having

powerful software (Stallman 2012). As Stallman (2012) writes: “the two

terms describe almost the same category of software, but they stand

for views based on fundamentally different values. Open source is a

development methodology; free software is a social movement.” The open

source implies that non-free software is an inferior solution to the

practical problem at hand, whereas for the free software advocates

non-free software “is a social problem” (Stallman 2012). “If it's

the same software (or nearly so), does it matter which name you

use?”, Stallman asks to answer, “yes, because different words convey

different ideas. While a free program by any other name would give you

the same freedom today, establishing freedom in a lasting way depends

above all on teaching people to value freedom.”

Aun más, en este marco contradictorio observamos matices no sólo en el

diseño institucional concerniente a la Internet sino también en la

terminología utilizada.  Por ejemplo, el giro de software "libre" a "de

código abierto".  El término "código abierto" se ha relacionado con

ideas y argumentos basados en los valores prácticos, tales como en la

capacidad técnica del software [@stallman-2012].  Como escribe Stallman

[-@stallman-2012]: "los dos términos describen casi la misma categoría

de software, pero se basan en valores fundamentalmente diferentes.  El

código abierto es una metodología de desarrollo; el software libre es un

movimiento social."  El código abierto presupone que el software no

libre es una solución inferior de un problema práctico dado, mientras

que el software libre advoca que el software libre "es un problema

social" [@stallman-2012].  "Si es el mismo software (o casi), ¿importa

qué nombre se le de?", pregunta Stallman para responder, "sí, porque

palabras diferentes conllevan diferentes ideas.  Mientras un programa

libre con cualquier otro nombre te puede dar las mismas libertades hoy,

establecer la libertad de forma duradera depende sobre todo de enseñar a

la gente a valorar la libertad."

We attempt to move from

a strict techno-economic analysis towards a discussion of the Commons

within a turbulent, contradictory socio-economic framework. In other

words, what is the role of the Commons in the capitalist accumulation