Like many free software aficionados, I agree with a lot of what Richard M. Stallman says. I should emphasise this, because otherwise it may appear as though I primarily disagree with him, and this is not the case. If you want an example of someone that I primarily disagree with (on matters relating to software licensing), then see Bill Gates. Even so, I usually wind up talking about why I disagree with Stallman, rather than why I agree with him. This is partly because there's less to talk about. In the same way, I'd pass comment on Microsoft doing the right thing, but not on them doing the wrong thing.

But there's an additional factor which really makes me want to emphasise my disagreement with RMS: he's extremely polar. If you make a statement that agrees with his views to a factor of 99%, he'll "correct" you on the remaining 1%. This is why you almost never see anyone say, "I respect RMS," except with the qualification, "but I don't agree with everything that he says". It seems almost impossible to make a statement about any of his key interests with which he will express agreement, save by actually quoting him. I find this self-appointed authority very annoying, and I'm pretty sure it's not a rare sentiment. Saint Ignucius, indeed; one could easily be forgiven for thinking him self-righteous. So, despite my significant common grounds with RMS, I'm not going to pull any punches about my points of disagreement.

One of the things on which he's unconditionally prepared to "correct" people is the use of language; that is, he's a Language Nazi. A "Language Nazi" can be detected like so: tell the subject, "you're a bit of a Language Nazi," and observe the response. A Language Nazi will respond along the lines of, "you really ought not to use the term 'Language Nazi', because Nazis are really members of the National Socialist German Workers' party, or people who sympathise with their views, and I don't do that." In other words, they'll pick on a particular term that you used, cite a dictionary definition which disagrees with your usage, and reject your entire statement as consequently void. Stallman advances this linguistic totalitarianism to new heights by citing his own personal dictionary when passing judgment.

And now that I've sufficiently elucidated the terms on which I disagree with the man, I'll get on with describing the actual instance of disagreement which prompted this diatribe in the first place, namely, his proclamations with regards to the term "Intellectual Property". The following quotations are from that source, although it was an opinion piece published in ZDNet Tech Update that actually got me started this time.

Publishers and lawyers like to describe copyright as ``intellectual property''---a term that also includes patents, trademarks, and other more obscure areas of law. These laws have so little in common, and differ so much, that it is ill-advised to generalize about them. It is best to talk specifically about ``copyright,'' or about ``patents,'' or about ``trademarks.''

Our first reason, then, not to use the term "Intellectual Property", is that it's over-broad. This is a valid objection when the term is actually used in an over-broad manner: there's a lot to be said for, "you are infringing my copyright," versus, "you are violating my intellectual property rights," when the former is an accurate statement. Specificity can improve clarity.

However, I bluntly disagree with the assertion that, "these laws have so little in common, ...that it is ill-advised to generalize about them." In general, they involve a monopoly being granted on some idea, word, symbol, or process; which is to say, they grant an artificial monopoly on things which could only form a natural monopoly if they were kept as a closely guarded secret. The details differ, of course, depending on which aspect of intellectual property law you are talking about, but reasonable generalisations do exist. It's useful to talk about "Intellectual Property" when distinguishing it from real property, and elucidation of those differences can lead to discussions on when and whether we ought to treat such intangibles as property.

Strangely enough, the GNU commentary on the matter recognises this generalisation, but dismisses it as unimportant.

Since these laws are so different, the term ``intellectual property'' is an invitation to simplistic thinking. It leads people to focus on the meager common aspect of these disparate laws, which is that they establish monopolies that can be bought and sold, and ignore their substance--the different restrictions they place on the public and the different consequences that result. At that broad level, you can't even see the specific public policy issues raised by copyright law, or the different issues raised by patent law, or any of the others. Thus, any opinion about ``intellectual property'' is almost surely foolish.

I find it an odd assertion that it's not reasonable to talk about the actual common factors of these laws. While I consider their specific effects important, I don't see why the broader picture should be dismissed as a mere distraction. I'm inclined to think that this is a weasely way of saying, "we aren't opposed to intellectual property; it's just that the intellectual property laws, as currently formulated, aren't meeting our agenda." They seem actively disinterested in questioning the whole idea of artificial restrictions on intangibles; instead, they just want to make sure that said restrictions are having the kind of effect that they would like them to have.

The paradoxical utopia of GNU is achieved by carefully restricting your ability to restrict the actions of others, sometimes by placing obligations on you, such as the obligation to share. This is, indeed, a reversal of the existing situation; it would probably even qualify as an improvement in many (if not most) regards. It's still a recipe for freedom through oppression, though, and these vaguely Orwellian dictates about which kinds of language are indicative of good thinking should give us pause.

I have more to say on this matter, but that will do for now.