You have heard it about as much as I have.
The consistant clame that open source and free software are communist ideas and that monopolists like Microsoft are capitalists.
Communism is simply the idea that everything is regulated by the state and there is no property.
Capitalism is the idea of regulation by free market and all things are property.
Open source and free software is the idea that software should be free and that laws and regulations that make software into property should be abolished.
Should anyone be able to control software or ideas in absence of such laws then he should be free to do so.
Monopolys such as Microsoft seek to use laws to restrict compeating companys.
They do not believe in the free market and desire laws to control information at the same time they break such laws to benifit themselfs.
Microsoft is as much communist as it is capitalist and the GPL community is as much capitalist as it is communist.
The fact is open source and free software is taking the issue from a compleatly diffrent angle and the classic lables are simply obsolete.
Open source is preticularly capitalistic much to the annoyence of the free software community but as we seek a commen goal it matters not.
This remains true of the commertal software community. There are monopolists such as Microsoft and the entruprenual such as Apple. Steve Woz and Bill Gates both seek to use the laws to control but act in totally diffrent behavures.
Steve Woz believes in the entriprenual aspect. Let inovation lead develupment then control your works. Woz would never object to a home computer with an Apple like design should it be devoid of apple compatability software such as Apples ROMs and DOS.
Bill Gates believes in the monopolistic aspect. Any way you can make people pay for your software is ok.
A better way to slice it is libertarianism vs corpratism.
The consept that we are better off with out laws or at least most laws. Legal minimalism.
Vs the consept of the government is there to protect all aspects of life. Or at least most aspects of life. Full legal involvment.
"Free Enterprise" "Free Speach" and "Free software" aren't multially exclusive. They are uniform. One falls they all fall.
"Free Enterprise" is not a garenty to proffits only the freedom to try.
"Free software" is not a shield against selling software only a protection that reguardless of how the software is distributed the software remains free to be distributed again.
"Free Speach" is not a protection against responsabilitys that come with speach but a garenty that you shall not be jailed for speaking your mind. You may lose your friends, job and respect but you won't go to jail for it.
In todays world you may not discuss how to build certan matereals or preform certan functions in sofware.
While it may be true that doing those things may be illegal for reasonable or obscure reasons the publishing of HOW should never be censored.
In a world that freely admits knowladge is power is not control over that knowladge automaticly a terrany over the masses?
All writings of certan historical figures may be clamed as the intelectual property of the famaly. As such that famaly has absolut control over history and how our kids will learn it. They alone shall deside how the deceased shall be seen.
At least once this frame of ownership over history has been used to sillence a public debate over a related issue.
On more than one occasion the famaly of an individal did not have that individuals best intrests in mind. A single famaly member (usually the child) can rebell in the most extream way beomming a living embodyment of everything the public figure is against.
Should this child come to control the legacy and works of the public figure the damage to history could be illreversable.
Annother example is when a populare public figure turns out to be the villen later in life the famaly may act to supress this fact and sillence historical travistys.