Re: [Fsfe-uk] Young Greens moving on FS

[MJ Ray]

On 2004-11-23 18:36:03 +0000 Richard Smith 
<address@hidden> wrote:

> According to RMS, your thinking that these very different laws have
> anything in common could be a *result* of your using the term
> 'intellectual property'. [...]
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.xhtml

RMS is smarter than to support the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis quite that 
explicitly. That's somewhat controversial and I doubt we're going to 
make much headway debating it when legions of linguists haven't.

I think that essay actually says that the "Intellectual Property" name 
is one part of a larger misdirection. It's somewhat frustrating that 
when people object to "IPR" only for the other TLA "PCT" (for Patents, 
Copyrights and Trademarks) to be used with no attempt to consider them 
individually. At least it removes a few things like design rights and 
non-disclosure agreements from the lumping, I guess.

Sorry for not replying to other messages in this thread, but most of 
them haven't been very related to the original suggestions. Also, this 
week being National Tree Week, I'm publicly questioning the local 
council about their Heritage Lottery Fund bid to clear all mature 
trees from several tree-lined promenades in the town's main park, so 
I've been talking to local media or friends when not working.

Alex is pretty much accurate about the point I was making to Lee - 
thanks for clarifying swiftly, Alex.

--
MJR/slef    My Opinion Only and not of any group I know
 Creative copyleft computing - http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
 Unsolicited attachments to the pipex address deleted
Will HLF fund tree-killings? http://www.thewalks.co.uk/