There is tangible property and there is intangible property. There are tangible goods and there are intangible goods.

All property has a right of posession and defense. All goods freely exchanged are so under contractual agreements. These statements are tautological.

If one values the social good, personal social capital or service to an ideology (art, services or labor) moreso than his value of his time, then he will give away his intangible and intangible goods for no charge and license them under minimal restrictions.

Evidence that some have inducted, or have been persuaded, that open source software and the free exchange of information is a negative right, does not make it so. In fact, this ideal is the opposite of a negative (natural) right.

The fact that there is free software and free information, and that you have benefited from it, does not imply there is a moral imperative to give all of your goods and services away. It is evidence that others have provided a goodwill gesture as an example to others to do the same for what they perceive is the greater good, and they had the excess resources to do so. To demonstrate that there are public spaces and buildings, created with private voluntary donations for the good of a community, is not evidence that no one should be allowed private property and that no one should own anything. This is denying the antecedent.