Yes, I agree. I was being simplistic. Let us go with what hackers want - their political analysis seems sound. My apologies to the list for suggesting otherwise. On 08/02/11 21:10, Michel Bauwens wrote:
the situation is a lot more complex than that
many different corporate players contribute to Linux, and the Linux Foundation consists for example of different players
though 75% of Linux contributors are paid, 25 % are still volunteers
I've heard from free software developers that a substantial number of IBM Linux workers can self-determine the areas they contribute to, depending not just on the corporate needs of IBM
I have yet to hear strong, or even weak, critiques of free software developers towards the general attitude of IBM in this matter, though they have 'specific' critiques about specific actions; in general, I think the opinions of those knowledge workers directly involved in such projects, should be taken into account
of course, the corporatisation of a commons is a matter of concern, and changes the rules of the game, but it remains a matter of community vs. corporate dynamics, not at all a simple and straight enclosure and programmed defeat, but a dynamic co-adaptation and struggle; nevertheless, it is a commons that continues to grow and create value for society; that creates sustainability and social reproduction for a very large fraction of contributors; the overwhelming majority of free software workers considers this important progress, not an enclosure in which they lost
nevertheless, this is why open source communities should ideally strive towards the creation of independent entities, use a logic of preferential attachment towards corporate entities that maximally share commons values, and fight for community autonomy in the governance of such commons; it's a construction and a struggle, not a fixed and idealized situation of total defeat
your analysis would suggest that voluntary contributors that can't make a living, is a superior situation where 75% percent of workers can make a living, an analysis and appreciation not shared by said commoners
free software workers do not share your ironic idealization of IBM, but they appreciate a social compact that reflects a current balance of power that is not experienced as something wholly negative, but as a realistic advance in the view of current circumstances; wnen this compact is broken, they frequently react, and frequently win these conflicts (see http://delicious.com/mbauwens/P2P-Conflicts); commoners aware of contradictions within the present political economy also create their own autonomous cooperatives (http://p2pfoundation.net/Free_Software_Cooperatives) and actively propose alternatives (such as the Venture Communism of Telekommunisten)
Our own p2p.coop is in process of adopting the latter's peer production license, which creates a commoners-only commons, i.e. an active and mutually supportive counter-economy; however, it comes at the price of a much slower growth of said commons, and actually 'closes' the commons to a significant degree; there is a real irony in that a real commons operating purely on commonist principles, is open to appropriation by capital, while a closed commons has a non-commercial clause which prohibits such appropriation
in such a context, a conclusion like, No commons without commoning, no IBM involvement without enclosure, would appear to deny such complexities; in fact, commoning and enclosure can co-exist in complex and paradoxical ways, in which the advantage of the one is not always a zero-sum game leading to the loss of another
which why I prefer the paradoxical conclusion: no real enclosure without real enclosure, and no enclosure without the majority of commoners experience such enclosure; of course such a conclusion would warrant that we take the experience and points of view of such workers seriously
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 11:51 PM, j.martin.pedersen < [email protected]> wrote:
On 08/02/11 12:14, Michel Bauwens wrote:
so does IBM and at the same time, it is also strengthening the free software commons.
On the premise that there are no commons without commoning, IBM does not strengthen the software commons.
Rather, IBM converts the (re)production of the *resource* that software commoners have created/established into a matter of wage labour.
Command over wage labour - and the means of production required to capitalise on it - are thus used to subsume control of what was previously a commons, - a process also known as enclosure. This is the first step. They claim ownership, by acquiring decision-making powers, by claiming de facto leadership of the organisation (and future direction) of the resource. Software - like most things - is movement, and IBM moves it in a direction away from common ground.
Due to way in which the GPL sits on the fence, this is possible without the immediately apparent destruction of the commons. Hence, for the uncritical observer it might appear as if IBM are adding to the commons, but their interaction with the commons actually results in the minimisation/marginalisation of commoners in the development of the commons: they are rendered marginal: they may still play with the code, i.e. the resource, but their commoning is ever less significant in the development of the resource, while waged labour and corporate planning increasingly determines the trajectory of the resource.
No commons without commoning, no IBM involvement without enclosure.
Unless, of course, we say that IBM is such a nice trustworthy outfit that like our Open Source friends at Google "do no evil"(TM) and who would never help computing another holocaust.
m
-- http://commoning.wordpress.com "...I thought we were an autonomous collective..."