the situation is a lot more complex than that<br> <br>many different corporate players contribute to Linux, and the Linux Foundation consists for example of different players<br><br>though 75% of Linux contributors are paid, 25 % are still volunteers<br>
<br>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<br><br>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<br>
<br>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 <br>
<br>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<br>
<br>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<br>
<br>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 <a href="http://delicious.com/mbauwens/P2P-Conflicts">http://delicious.com/mbauwens/P2P-Conflicts</a>); commoners aware of contradictions within the present political economy also create their own autonomous cooperatives (<a href="http://p2pfoundation.net/Free_Software_Cooperatives">http://p2pfoundation.net/Free_Software_Cooperatives</a>) and actively propose alternatives (such as the Venture Communism of Telekommunisten)<br>
<br>Our own <a href="http://p2p.coop">p2p.coop</a> 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<br>
<br>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<br>
<br>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<br>
<br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 11:51 PM, j.martin.pedersen <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:m.pedersen@lancaster.ac.uk">m.pedersen@lancaster.ac.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im"><br>
<br>
On 08/02/11 12:14, Michel Bauwens wrote:<br>
> so does IBM and at the same time, it is also strengthening<br>
> the free software commons.<br>
<br>
</div>On the premise that there are no commons without commoning, IBM does not<br>
strengthen the software commons.<br>
<br>
Rather, IBM converts the (re)production of the *resource* that software<br>
commoners have created/established into a matter of wage labour.<br>
<br>
Command over wage labour - and the means of production required to<br>
capitalise on it - are thus used to subsume control of what was<br>
previously a commons, - a process also known as enclosure. This is the<br>
first step. They claim ownership, by acquiring decision-making powers,<br>
by claiming de facto leadership of the organisation (and future<br>
direction) of the resource. Software - like most things - is movement,<br>
and IBM moves it in a direction away from common ground.<br>
<br>
Due to way in which the GPL sits on the fence, this is possible without<br>
the immediately apparent destruction of the commons. Hence, for the<br>
uncritical observer it might appear as if IBM are adding to the commons,<br>
but their interaction with the commons actually results in the<br>
minimisation/marginalisation of commoners in the development of the<br>
commons: they are rendered marginal: they may still play with the code,<br>
i.e. the resource, but their commoning is ever less significant in the<br>
development of the resource, while waged labour and corporate planning<br>
increasingly determines the trajectory of the resource.<br>
<br>
No commons without commoning, no IBM involvement without enclosure.<br>
<br>
Unless, of course, we say that IBM is such a nice trustworthy outfit<br>
that like our Open Source friends at Google "do no evil"(TM) and who<br>
would never help computing another holocaust.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
m<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>P2P Foundation: <a href="http://p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://p2pfoundation.net</a> - <a href="http://blog.p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://blog.p2pfoundation.net</a> <br>
<br>Connect: <a href="http://p2pfoundation.ning.com" target="_blank">http://p2pfoundation.ning.com</a>; Discuss: <a href="http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation" target="_blank">http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation</a><br>
<br>Updates: <a href="http://del.icio.us/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://del.icio.us/mbauwens</a>; <a href="http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens</a>; <a href="http://twitter.com/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://twitter.com/mbauwens</a>; <a href="http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens</a><br>
<br>Commons Strategies Group, <a href="http://www.commonsstrategies.org/" target="_blank">http://www.commonsstrategies.org/</a><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>