Perhaps this is the problem with the word "Communism"...

Communism is an aggregate pattern of (at least!) four aspects:

1) Ideology -- the set of ideas that serve as its precursor; the set of ideas that set into motion all that follows.

2) Economic Implementation -- the economic implementation of those ideas;

3) Law/Legal Implementation -- how those ideas are (or have historically been) implemented in law/legal frameworks.

4) Government Implementation -- how those ideas have been implemented in government frameworks.

#1 can be summed up as: "From each according to ability, to each according to need".

You might compare this to non-dysfunctional families in Western Democracies under Capitalism -- all of them (if they are operating correctly) -- fit under this description...

Now, that's #1 for the purpose of our discussion (you might also compare this to Christianity in it's purest, non-religious form, or any religion that espouses giving to help others in need, when they are in need, and you might also compare it to welfare/needs-based programs in Western democracies...)

But, for the purposes of our discussion, we're only really concerned with #2, and only #2 as applies to a subset of the entire economy (the software industry and other industries that rely on software), and only the subset of that where Open Source Software is freely used.

Now, that brings us to private property rights.

(By the way, you must be a lawyer because you use the word "property" rather than "asset" <g>).

But that brings us to private property rights.

(Oh, I should also point out that in Law, "rights exist opposite to a contract" <g>)

But, that brings us to private property rights.

Private property rights (and one question that you might ask is "How much liberty (as opposed to 'rights') do you really have to your property if those rights must be enforced opposite a contract, one that you didn't write, and one that must be interepreted by the Courts?"

Ah!

But even that isn't the main point!

The main point is this -- from the point of view of cooperation; of helping other people out -- Open Source Software certainly fits that bill!

It fulfills the central tenet of "From each according to ability, to each according to need".

Well, maybe not absolutely in terms of property rights, there could be cases where an OSS license prevents something from happening -- for example, using someone else's source code in their own commercial products, and then hiding the source and preventing others from modifying/sharing it! (Remember that this was the original reason that Richard Stallman created the Open Source license -- it was a preemptive contract(!) TO PREVENT COMPANIES FROM ENGAGING IN PRECISELY THAT BEHAVIOR! Remember that that actually happened to Richard Stallman a long time ago -- some company used his own work in a commercial product, closed sourced it, and didn't give him any credit! It's sort of like Richard Stallman used the Law -- to fight other company's abuse of the Law!)

But, I see your point.

So, let me refine my statement somewhat...

Open Source Software agrees with #1 in spirit as much as possible -- though not always in all circumstances (due to license restrictions -- but remember that for the most part, those license restrictions (AKA "property rights") are there to prevent abuse by actors that do not share in the same spirit.)

Now, private property rights as applies to #4 -- is a completely different discussion...

I do not believe a government has any right to take away the private propety of it's people, for any reason (although, for exceptions one could examine the history of our Constitution's Taking's Clause: “Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” (Translation: private property can be taken for public use -- albeit with 'just compensation'...)

In fact, one of the reasons why governments are formed -- why our government was formed -- is/was to protect the private property of the individuals that comprise it.

So, private property rights as applies to how a government is implemented (#4) -- is an entirely a different discussion.

For the record, I do not believe in Communism (at least in its historical governmental implementations) -- but I do believe in sharing, helping others, etc. etc.

The word "Communism" itself is an abstraction which means many different things to many different people; I outlined four possible meanings, but of course, there are many more.

Perhaps a good idea would be to read Joel Spolsky's essay on "Leaky Abstractions"

https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/11/11/the-law-of-leaky-a...

And then, compare this (symbolically) to what the Bible has to say about "The Tower Of Babel"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Babel

And possibly think about abstraction hierarchies in language as Jenga games:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenga

In other words, we don't just have leaky abstractions in Software -- we also have leaky abstractions in language...