You did say that. Ideas are the abstract, content is the concrete. So basically you said that nothing can be owned. I can own anything I want. I can own your head if my distorted mind thinks I somehow own it. That will be my opinion. You will disagree, of course, and society will disagree, and, legally, I will not own it, but I will in my mind.

I either SAID it, or I "basically said it". Stop Interpreting my words and making confusion where there is none. I said that it DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, it's ILLOGICAL, to OWN or POSSES ideas. I didn't say that Ownership Doesn't Exist because I said that Intelectual Ownership Doesn't Make Sense, and I didn't basically say it simply because you assert a construed connection and interpret it in some kind of absolute.

There is no "actual ownership". There is absolute and relative ownership, and under relative ownership there is ownership as an opinion (effective only in the thinker's mind) and ownership as a right (effective in a community such as human society).

Actually, there is ACTUAL Ownership and ACTUAL Authorship, and it makes no difference if it's ABSOLUTE, or INFINITE, or IMMUTABLE, and even dogs recognize it, not Human society.

Open Source means that you can see it, not that you can copy it or alter it. You have no legal right to attribute to yourself a copy of a piece of open source

Open Source means that you can copy it AND alter it. It doesn't mean you can claim it, but nobody is getting BROUGHT DOWN for plagiarizing open source, they won't have money to bring anyone down.