After looking at the results and comments from the last poll, I'm not sure that people really understood the choices. The Linux choice was inspired by comments made by Microsoft employees and others, where Linux was being compared to communism on the basis of it being free and it promotes sharing of code. The second choice was centered about the idea that packaged software is generally not given to people to use, but licensed for use. In this case, people are not given any private property; it is instead owned by one collective body, in this case, the software developer.

Both comparisons are actually stretching definitions quite a bit. By carefully selecting parts of the free/open source model, or parts of the commercial software model, we can suggest that either is communism. In fact, everything is communism if you really wanted to find a similarity. One could just as easily say that they worked under communism since, at work, one doesn't own anything (their desk, their pens, their other tools,...) and everyone works for the common good of the company.

The point is that free/open source isn't communism. It's a licensing model for distributed software.

By the way when I read Steve Ballmer's line "Linux sort of springs organically from the earth," I wondered if that means that Windows doesn't and is therefore unnatural. See, I can easily stretch things to fit my own agenda.