From: Gregory Brown <gregory.t.brown@...>
Date: 2005-11-20T08:48:43+09:00
Subject: Re: OT: "Intellectual property" (was: Re: Ruby not commercial, right?)

On 11/19/05, Christophe Grandsire <christophe.grandsire@free.fr> wrote:

> OK, I guess this wasn't as short as I wanted it to be. But when you read
> that, you must understand why a term like "Intellectual Property" is
> needlessly simplificating and confusing. The different forms of this
> so-called "intellectual property" apply to different things, are
> protected in different ways, for different durations, and infringing on
> them means something different for each of them.
>
> So please, don't use that term. You're only confusing yourself, and others.

I agree.  Avoiding the term 'intellectual property' is important. 
Rights of an author to the protection of their work in the way they
see fit is a valid concept, but attempting to coerce this into being
analogous to property in any way is misleading and confusing.