The thesis of J. Martin Pedersen, * "Property, Commoning and the Politics of
Free Software"* , published by the Commoner, is making some startling claims
about the free software/free culture movements,

if I read it correctly it implies,

- that the free software movement is 'vehemently' opposed to property

- that both FS and free culture rest on freedoms won by others and are not
themselves part of the civil rights movements

- that the leaders of the Free culture and free software movements are
separating themselves from the real commons (material commons)

My own feeling is that:

1) the free software movement is generally quite aware that it also
represents a new form of property, based on a  hack (reform, or
transformation of) existing copyright legislation

2) that both movements are themmselves civil rights movements and
successors, not profiteers or parasites, of previous civil rights movements

3) that while many fs/fc advocates accomodate themselves to the dominant
economic structures, this by no means precludes using the new digital
commons as ways to strenghten material commons

Thanks for reading the excerpt for yourself to make sure I'm not making an
erroneoous interpretation

I"m particular interested in quotable understandings of free software
advocates on the property issue,

Michel


Here is the excerpt, from chapter 1:
http://www.commoner.org.uk/N14/the-commoner-14-winter-2010-chapter1.pdf

" I develop a view on property that is
inspired by the phenomenon of Free Software. It is paradoxical because
the Free Software Foundation, the self-organised civil society
institution and social movement that defines Free Software, *does not see
the concept of property as relevant for Free Software. They vehemently
reject the idea.* In that sense I am standing outside the movement,
insofar as we understand the movement as the voice of its leaders. But
why should we?

Although I argue against their rejection of property, the main purpose
is not to advise the Free Software Foundation on matters of policy
strategy and tactics, but to provide the wider global network of social
movements working to (re-)create commons with a map and matrix of
property that can be used to advance their causes and to grasp just how
multi-faceted a concept property is. Understanding Free Software as
property is a very useful starting point for transcending existing
conceptions of property, because when understood as property, Free
Software opens the door for radically different configurations of
property. Importantly, Free Software is an example of a community
articulating their own relational modalities and thus defining how they
self-organise to make space for a realisation of their “needs, desires,
aspirations, affects and relations” (De Angelis 2005a). While it is
certainly an important victory for community based, self-legislation, it
is perhaps even more importantly a crack in property where the light
gets in: if we inscribe the relational modalities of Free Software upon
the concept of property, then the concept is forever changed. In other
words, its “framing effect” would be entirely different and informed
debate become possible.

Above I used the term paradox to avoid any association with
self-contradiction. It might be read as if I am contradicting myself,
declaring allegiance with social movements, then turning around to
conceptualise the dynamics of a social movement in terms that they
reject.  However, the contradiction is on their part.

The libertarian values that the Free Software and Free Culture movements
exhibit are not liberties that were won in the struggle for virtual
commons and the right to share digital information and cooperate on
software projects. The freedoms upon which the Free Software commons
rests – the liberties that make it possible for such a movement to act
and organise – are liberties won by struggling women and men, who with
their bodies fought for land and freedom.  The habeas corpus in which
virtual commoners find themselves is an outcome of a struggle that has
been unfolding for almost a millennia. Arguably, the leadership of the
Free Software and Free Culture movements are separating themselves from
the real commons. The commons of the land and the commons of the means
of production and distribution are the fundamental commons without which
virtual commons are merely lambs for the profit slaughter.

-- 
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org

Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

Think tank: http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI