Property in the commons?
Key references please . . . Is there property in the commons? Or is property an intrinsically non-commons construct?
Is some underlying notion of property required, if legal instruments associated with commons are to be reconciled with established law (eg Roman law?) and defended in court? In which case, what kinds of property are there; and what kind is 'commons property'? Is there ownership in the commons; or some other kind of relationship of commoners and commoned resources, perhaps called 'holding'?
I'm thinking specifically of material entities - wild water, life, genomes, documents, data files - rather than immaterial resources. Although in any case I understand the so-called immaterial resources of 'knowledge' to be nothing other than the material capabilities of specific collectives of people: labour-power. But labour-power commons are another story? Back to the question . . .
Alternatively, is there a legitimate (legally defensible) status for resources held in common, without any person having property of any kind in them; but with rights and duties asserted over these resources, by customary or contemporary commoners, bearing upon commoners? Does this depend on the commoners having manifestly made the resources? Or can it be also asserted over 'natural' or customary resources, traditionally associated with the commoners' lives? Can non-commoners be excluded from access to a commons 'with legal force'? Or just with main force?
Is there a distinct category of resources - perhaps called assets? - that have been assigned a (temporary) right for exploitation by specific non-commoners (market actors) under (copyLeft/copyFair etc) licence? And does this then make them property?
Apologies for asking such basic questions, I hope they make sense? I haven't the first clue when it comes to law, and there's so much out there on reciprocity, copyLeft/copyFair etc.
It makes my brain hurt rather, but I do see how basic it is, that we should be able to accumulate resources in commons, constituting massive forces of production (and nurture) in the commons, which are excluded - in legally defensible ways - from exploitation in capitalist markets. And that we should become literate in these esoteric things, even if (especially because) most of the commonplace associated language (eg 'property' itself) is a Trojan horse for capital.