Subject: Re: The term "intellectual property" considered useful
From: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 22:23:37 -0700

Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
> Since I include myself in "we supporters" of the Free Software Movement,
> Thomas Lord does not speak for "we".
>

Let me nip this in the bud, please.  

Multiple people criticized RMS's position, other's defend it.

By "we" I mean absolutely nothing more than "I think I am not
entirely alone in my criticisms."

I do not mean to speak for the FSB mailing list or any specific or
all contributors to this thread (other than myself). 

Sheesh.   One would think these things would be stunningly
obvious and presumed but in addition to your on-list reply
I got a similar one off-list.   Sorry for any confusion I caused.
I think you're being silly but I do respect your right to be
silly.


> Tom, do you feel you failed to make convincing arguments on their merits?
>

Um, not even a little bit.

> So your "last word" rhetoric, (if it can be called rhetoric), seems

like something you are over-interpreting or mis-interpreting.
Sorry.  How much do you want to do a post-mortem here?
If non-0, I invite you off-list to get through the back-and-forth
and then we can report back?

> I appreciate the responses from RMS in the forum of FSB, because
> educating people about the use of misleading terminology is part of
> the larger process of enlightment about the importance of the
> Free Software Movement, and in this case, the very real threats to
> mankind's rapid progress in software.
>
> What do you think is the greater goal?

I think everything I have said in this thread is consistent with
Free Software Movement goals, much of what I have said contributes,
and happily I found no reason to say anything that detracts.
This is not identical to saying that I think RMS agrees with
everything I say.

-t