A BLOG article from copyright lawyer Howard Knopf describes a document called the GUIDELINES ON ETHICS AND THE NEW TECHNOLOGY. This document contains some of the same biased "software manufacturing" propaganda that one would normally only expect in a BSA or CAAST press release. They have taken no consideration for the way that FLOSS is legally created and distributed, instead promoting some of the harmful misconceptions that lead people to invalidly believe that that sharing FLOSS is illegal.
They list four types of non-FLOSS licensing under "Are Software Licensing Policies Standardized", giving the impression that those listed are the only legitimate licensing options. By lines of distributed code I am certain that FLOSS licensing outnumbers the non-FLOSS, with the GNU General Public License said to be the most popular of these -- and none of the common FLOSS licensing options were listed.
I wish some of these lawyers would read Lessig's book "Code and other laws of cyberspace". Maybe they would realize that it isn't any more logical to think of software as "manufactured" than it is to think about laws as "manufactured". They might also realize they know more about the production of software than they think, and that what the legacy vendors have been telling them doesn't make sense.