[thelist] intellectual property again (was RE: Findingthe company...?)

[Shawn K. Quinn]

On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 11:34 -0800, Joel D Canfield wrote:
> > Thinking in terms of property means sooner or later someone will say
> > "that's mine, you can't take it and use it elsewhere."
> 
> But it *does* belong to someone. Are you saying it doesn't?

I'm saying that using the word "property" to refer to something which
the laws are very different from actual property laws, only confuses
matters and encourages unwarranted greed.

> Calling it 'property' didn't cause the developer to refuse to give it
> up; it should, in fact, have clarified things.

Apparently, it did not in this case.

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn at speakeasy.net>