The "intellectual property" misnomer

[Tim Peters]

[Guido]
>> The PSF holds the intellectual property rights for Python

[Ben Finney]
> Ugh.  Please don't propagate this ridiculous, meaningless term.  It's
> used to refer to a wide range of greatly disparate legal concepts; to
> use it as a single term implies that there's some unifying
> "intellectual property" principle joining them together, which is a
> falsehood.

Guido isn't writing a treatise on the law, he's briefly explaining (part of)
what the PSF does.  I doubt many are confused by what he said, and you
proved you're not:

> If the PSF holds the copyright to Python, please say that.
>
> If the PSF holds patents which cover Python, please say that.
>
> If the PSF owns the trademark for Python, please say that.
>
> If the PSF has trade secrets in Python, please say that.

So you somehow managed to divine Guido's intent from that "ridiculous,
meaningless term" <0.5 wink> -- part of the PSF's business is indeed dealing
with all legalities affecting the use of Python.  I don't think pedantic
verbosity makes it any clearer, but may mislead due to omission.

> But please *don't* muddy the water by saying the PSF holds "the
> intellectual property rights" for Python.  That says nothing useful --
> it doesn't help determine which of the above fields of law are
> applicable -- and only promotes the idea that all these different
> fields of law are part of a whole, which they are definitely not.

A goole search just now got close to 30,000 hits on "IP law", with a
striking similarity of meaning across the dozen I browsed.  The idea that
what Guido meant by the above is obscure defies common sense, and I know for
a fact that he didn't author at least 25,000 of those web pages <wink>.