Then books are communism because the words can be copied. Then music is communism because songs can be covered. Then paintings are communism because they can be forged.
You are ignorant of copyright law and what open source really is.
Here's a quick primer:
* Copyright law says you can't copy stuff without permission from the owners of the copyright. Since the 70s, anyone who creates something that can be copyrighted automatically owns the copyright.
* Most companies require that people working for them automatically assign copyright to them for stuff they are working on. There is a gray area when you build something on your own time but in my experience most just want you to tell them what you are doing to avoid future conflicts.
* Most software is licensed "commercially" meaning you have to pay them to use it. You are not allowed to view the source code. You are not allowed to modify it. This is the "Microsoft" model that Bill Gates created. This software sucks because no one knows what it is actually doing and no one can fix it when it breaks (which it often does.)
* Open-source software may charge companies to use the software but allows the company to view the code and even modify it. It may or may not allow you to publish those changes or require you to publish them under the same conditions.
* "Free as in freedom" software, often licensed under the GPL, allows anyone to use it however they like, allows people to charge for distributing it (IE, selling CDs or such) but requires that the software be open source forever. People who receive a copy are allowed to view the code, modify it, and even publish their own changes, as long as they publish it under the same copyright conditions. People (myself included) are often paid to write GPL software.
* For completeness' sake, there is also software that no one claims any copyright of. It is called "public domain". The problem is if you start using public domain software, you'll find that people have modified versions that aren't public domain. You can't use those modifications unless you get permission from the people who made the changes.
It has nothing to do with communism. Communism would require that the state own all software, or that software be distributed under conditions set by the state or what not. Or it would require that all software developers make the same amount of money or that all of the profits from the sales of software go into the state treasury.
So few developers get paid to write open source that if they chose this route they would likely starve. Similar to how choosing communism ends up. Your passionate emotions have prevented you from logically thinking about an analogy.
Here's a quick primer:
* Copyright law says you can't copy stuff without permission from the owners of the copyright. Since the 70s, anyone who creates something that can be copyrighted automatically owns the copyright.
* Most companies require that people working for them automatically assign copyright to them for stuff they are working on. There is a gray area when you build something on your own time but in my experience most just want you to tell them what you are doing to avoid future conflicts.
* Most software is licensed "commercially" meaning you have to pay them to use it. You are not allowed to view the source code. You are not allowed to modify it. This is the "Microsoft" model that Bill Gates created. This software sucks because no one knows what it is actually doing and no one can fix it when it breaks (which it often does.)
* Open-source software may charge companies to use the software but allows the company to view the code and even modify it. It may or may not allow you to publish those changes or require you to publish them under the same conditions.
* "Free as in freedom" software, often licensed under the GPL, allows anyone to use it however they like, allows people to charge for distributing it (IE, selling CDs or such) but requires that the software be open source forever. People who receive a copy are allowed to view the code, modify it, and even publish their own changes, as long as they publish it under the same copyright conditions. People (myself included) are often paid to write GPL software.
* For completeness' sake, there is also software that no one claims any copyright of. It is called "public domain". The problem is if you start using public domain software, you'll find that people have modified versions that aren't public domain. You can't use those modifications unless you get permission from the people who made the changes.
It has nothing to do with communism. Communism would require that the state own all software, or that software be distributed under conditions set by the state or what not. Or it would require that all software developers make the same amount of money or that all of the profits from the sales of software go into the state treasury.