The "intellectual property" misnomer

[Tim Peters]

[Terry Reedy]
> In response to a query of mine, someone -- I believe you, Tim -- said
> that CNRI, not PSF, was still attempting to trademark 'Python' as
> applied to computer languages (but having some difficulty).

Yes.

> Last I know, CNRI still has copyrights to Python 1.?-1.6.  So I was a
> bit puzzled as to what Guido meant by his blanket statement.

This has been clarified by several people several times in this thread.  Is
it in need of more clarification?

> Has CNRI (and the Dutch institute before it) renounced its (their)
> 'IP' claims with respect to Python in favor of PSF?

No.  Negotiations on these matters are in progress, though.

> If not, then "The PSF holds the intellectual property rights for
> Python" would not be true as commonly interpreted, at least as by this
> commoner.

That's so, but it's been explained before in this thread.  "The PSF partly
exists to hold the IP rights for Python, holds some now, and is pursuing
transfer of others" is a fuller statement of Guido's intent.

> (But then I know that Guido most definitely ain't a lawyer).

In which case there's not much point picking apart his one-liners as if he
were <wink>.  A lot of info about the PSF can be found on its web site,
including its articles of incorporation, corporate bylaws, mission
statement, minutes of board meetings, and the full text of its (successful)
IRS Form 1023 application:

    http://www.python.org/psf/

People who would rather do something useful <wink> should go straight to
here:

    http://www.python.org/psf/donations.html