Let me voice a dissenting opinion: I don't mind this nearly as much as other people do. Entities invested in intellectual property have tried, and largely succ

Let me voice a dissenting opinion: I don't mind this nearly as much as other people do. Entities invested in intellectual property have tried, and largely succeeded, to influence what terms people use to describe intellectual property. They do this because it's an effective way of affecting public opinion, by anchoring certain concepts against other concepts (it's more effective on people who don't have a strong opinion, which for copyright law is the majority of people). It's a common and useful marketing tactic. RMS is observant enough to see this happening, and recognize that it is one of the battlefields of public opinion. He is trying to counter it. And he is doing it in an open and transparent fashion, unlike his opposition, which unfairly opens him up to criticism. The main problem I have is that terminology seems to be the main front where RMS focuses most of his efforts. He spends more time on pedantry and very fine, subtle arguments about distinctions between different types of abstract freedoms. So much that actual messaging becomes a secondary priority, to his detriment.