Buon inizio di anno a tutti! Vi inoltro un tema che potrebbe essere di interesse per questa lista riguardante software libero, proprietà e altro. -------- Messaggio originale -------- Oggetto: [fcf_discussion] is property relevant for free software, do free cultures advocates ignore 'real commons' Data: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 14:48:45 +0700 Mittente: Michel Bauwens <...> Rispondi-a: fcforum_discussion@list.fcforum.net A: fcforum_discussion@list.fcforum.net CC: ... 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