Subject: Re: The term "intellectual property" considered useful
From: "Forrest J. Cavalier III" <mibsoft@mibsoftware.com>
Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 00:51:31 -0400

Thomas Lord wrote:

[snip]

> So here is what I am writing to you about your treatment of
> the phrase "intellectual property":  your language theory here is
> inaccurate, your rhetoric is uncharacteristically emarrasing.
> You have, imo, a small problem in this area.   I hope you find
> a characteristically graceful way to fix it.  I and others are
> writing to you on this issue.   I think it's safe to speak beyond
> myself and say that *we*, supporters, think you need to change
> your ways on this issue.
> 

Since I include myself in "we supporters" of the Free Software Movement,
Thomas Lord does not speak for "we".

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

So your "last word" rhetoric, (if it can be called rhetoric), seems
to be a simple appeal for RMS to conform to "acceptable" behavior
and language that most often serves corporate wealth, not freedom.

Why is that change attractive?  Who decides "acceptable?"  For what
purpose?

I think we already know what the Free Software Movement would be if
"conforming to business practices" was a primary motivator.  I think
it would look a lot like the Open Source Movement.  Tom, I know you
already understand the distinction.  Here is the page for review...
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html

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?