View Single Post
Texrat's Avatar
Posts: 11,700 | Thanked: 10,045 times | Joined on Jun 2006 @ North Texas, USA
#80
Originally Posted by benny1967 View Post
... which, by itself, wouldn't rule out the possibility that it is a propaganda term. - But AFAIK, the U.S. constitution doesn't even use the term "intellectual property" in its so-called "intellectual-property-clause".

What I meant was this.

(And I recommend reading this.)

I love RMS. Can't help it.
I see what Gnu is saying, but I also think the term "IP" is in and of itself innocuous. I see no harm per se in an umbrella term for copyright, patents and trademarks and feel that some of the ire is much ado about nothing.

Rather than going to war over semantics, they should focus on battling the bastardization of the principles (ie, stupidly long copyrights, et al). What Gnu and others don't seem to get is that "IP" has become a strawman, a foil for arguments that dilutes the real dissension and induces time wasted on things of lesser importance... like terms.



EDIT: that last comment was meant half tongue-in-cheek. It just doesn't come across, sorry. Need a new smiley...
__________________
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net

Last edited by Texrat; 2009-11-30 at 22:17.