IntellectualProperty

It is worth noting that "Intellectual Property" is in the GNU project's list of "words to avoid": http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#IntellectualProperty

Quoting from the gnu site: (I'm assuming a quotation this size constitutes fair use/dealings of the fsf's material? - MalcolmTyrrell)

• 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."

  The term "intellectual property" carries a hidden assumption---that the way to think about all these disparate issues is based on an analogy with physical objects, and our ideas of physical property.

  When it comes to copying, this analogy disregards the crucial difference between material objects and information: information can be copied and shared almost effortlessly, while material objects can't be.

  To avoid the bias and confusion of this term, it is best to make a firm decision not to speak or even think in terms of "intellectual property".

  The hypocrisy of calling these powers "rights" is starting to make WIPO embarassed.[1]

[1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/wipo-PublicAwarenessOfCopyright-2002.html

IFSO is not obliged to follow this principle, but we should make a "firm decision" one way or the other.