Linux, in fact, does not exist under capitalism. The Linux Foundation does not own capital. It does not pay taxes. Value is neither rented nor extracted from the workers who fully retain all ownership of the labor value of the product of Linux. The same way a commune can exist despite capitalism also existing, it does not mean that commune exists under capitalism.
The actual definition of capital. By the people that invented the term. A resource that is rented to another in exchange for part or all of the value generated by that resource. The Linux Foundation, being a non-profit, does not own any capital whatsoever, otherwise they would lose their non-profit status.
Why? The proof that linux exists under capitalism already proves your point does not hold
Linux, in fact, does not exist under capitalism. The Linux Foundation does not own capital. It does not pay taxes. Value is neither rented nor extracted from the workers who fully retain all ownership of the labor value of the product of Linux. The same way a commune can exist despite capitalism also existing, it does not mean that commune exists under capitalism.
Hmmm, I guess it depends on what you mean by capital. Because The Linux Foundation certainly has assets that they could donate to other FOSS project
The actual definition of capital. By the people that invented the term. A resource that is rented to another in exchange for part or all of the value generated by that resource. The Linux Foundation, being a non-profit, does not own any capital whatsoever, otherwise they would lose their non-profit status.