Subject: Re: The term "intellectual property" considered useful
From: simo <>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 10:20:51 -0400

On Thu, 2006-05-11 at 08:32 -0500, Michael Upchurch wrote:
> On Thu, 11 May 2006 05:32:16 -0400, "David H. Lynch Jr."  wrote:
> >Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> >> Intellectual property *is* personal property. It can be possessed,
> >> transferred, inherited, etc. 
> >In the event that is a valid expression of the state of the law -
> >which I do not believe is correct. ...
> We can exit the realm of the theoretical with your personal beliefs and
> enter the realm of reality on this issue.  In Tennessee software is
> considered to be tangible personal property and has been so for twenty
> years (see Creasy Systems Consultants, Inc. v. Olsen, 716 S.W.2d 35, 36
> (Tenn. 1986)).  
> This is the painful reality of the state of the law for anyone doing
> business in Tennessee.  Lots of GPL-based software is distributed in
> Tennessee.  This GPL-based software is considered to be tangible personal
> property if the recipient takes posssession in Tennessee whether you like
> it or not.

There is some state that thinks that it is scientific to speak about
"intelligent design" ... and people that pretend to change the law of
physics just by changing the laws of men.

Anyway thanks for the reality check, it is appreciated.

Can you also tell us what consequences these Teneesee law have on free
software licenses?