Making, giving and keeping
To be identified and named as the owner of an object makes people understand the world. The object might be a book, a sacred drum or sourcecode, but it is the property, it is owned, by someone.Ownership is on the other hand not a simple and straight forward manifestation of property relations. Being the owner of a thing and what rights this entitless one to, has to be explored. As J.K. Rowling explains with the voices of the figures from the Harry Potter univers:
Bill: "You don't understand, Harry, nobody could understand unless they have lived with goblins. To a goblin, the rightful and true master of any object is the maker, not the purchaser. All goblin-made objects are, in goblin eyes, rightfully theirs."
Harry: "But if it was bought --"
Bill: "-- then they would consider it rented by the one who had paid the money."
(Harry Potter and the deadly Hallows).
This talk will explore the meaning and paradox of owning free software, through a focus on three terms; making, giving and keeping. An individual might decide to write (make) a piece of software, license it under the GPL (give it away) but still keep it. The whole process becomes a paradox, then how is this possible in a world based on the alienation (selling) of things. The inspiration is derived from five years of anthropological filedwork and an analytical forray into the cultural importance of inalianable possessions.
The discussion will become a tour de force of the connections and similarities between canoes, shellnecklaces and sourcecode – as well as real-world continuity between people of the Raj Coast of Papua New Guinea, the Baining of Melanesia, hackers who assemble in Berlin and Linux kernel submitters..
Finally; ownership is power. Free software is not apart from relations of power and ownership, theough they are seldom address directly.Using the Linux kernel as example the talk will end with a look at how free software property relations continue across time. Hackers are not goblins, but is is not wrong to state that hackers have a different understanding of ownership.