The "intellectual property" misnomer

[Ian Bicking]

On Sat, 2003-07-12 at 01:09, Ben Finney wrote:
> On 12 Jul 2003 00:27:49 -0500, Ian Bicking wrote:
> > Functionally, though, I think the term intellectual property here
> > works.
> 
> Only by accepting the fallacy that there is a meaning to the term
> "intellectual property".  There is no such thing -- not in law, not in
> reality.

While I agree with your dislike of the term, intellectual property
*does* mean something -- it is a category of legal rights, several of
which potentially apply to Python.  The rights are diverse, but they
have been categorized in this way, and that categorization does apply
and convey the correct meaning.  To the degree those rights apply to
Python, they are held by PSF.

Just because a term is not specific does not mean it is meaningful. 
Intellectual property is similar to a term like mammal or sea creature
-- it's a category.

  Ian