Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Steven Ericsson-Zenith" <steven AT semeiosis.com>]

J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote ..
> Steven Ericsson-Zenith wrote:
> > An open source license also licenses the use of intellectual property
> > - not only the copyright of the source. Copyright pertains only to
> > the substantive document it is applied to - not the intellectaul
> > property within. Or am I mistaken ?
> 
> I think you are mistaken, but more on the use of a concept that has no
> meaning.  "Intellectual property" is not a real subject, thus no 
> substantive questions can be asked about it and one cannot answer the 
> question you have asked except to point out that the question makes no
> sense.

That's very funny - since I have spent a good deal of my career developing 
"Intellectual Property" for myself and others. In addition, I have spent much 
of 
that time asking substantive questions about it.  Be that as it may ... 

> 
> Copyright law, patent law, trademark law, mask rights, and other 
> disparate areas of law, which are often mashed together as "intellectual
> property" as though they have so much in common, are real and can be 
> discussed.

You are confused. The subject of these laws - according to your account - 
does 
not exist.

My question remains open.

With respect,
Steven