<Rod Dixon> Whether the point is pertinent I am unsure, but for whatever it is worth, I >think Stallman's point is well-taken. "Intellectual property" is a >loaded term that is increasingly connoting a strange sense of property >and an oddly wide-ranging scope of interests. To thwart this trend, as >Stallman points out, we should be more precise in our use of >terms...[but I would add] to the extent that it makes sense.
I agree with RMS and you about using "Copyright" in English. English is my third language. European Laws use I.P. where US uses "Copyright". The US extent of the expression "I.P." is larger than in Europe. To be short, we focuse on works protected by the (c) symbol, and on Laws which cover its usage. I agree to replace occurences of "IP" by the word "Copyright" in my former messages. I understand that the extent of the "IP" term in US Laws allows this term to be widely used by propaganda. But I do not believe that propaganda is the true problem. Denouncing propaganda is important, but not a solution. We also need to understand the true questions, and find solutions. IRM -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
