But this formula simply does not fit text. The text I write is indeed my intellectual property, even if it is give-away text. All that means is that no one else is allowed to claim to have authored it.
The usual meaning of the term "intellectual property" is something different: it means "copyright, patent, trademark, and various other things." If the meaning above is what you intend to say, and if you would like people to understand your intended meaning, I suggest you find a different way to say it. But it is important that you should not do the same thing either! What is good for and true of software is not necessarily good for and true of texts. I agree and will take it a step further: even when something is good and true for written works, such as software or scientific texts, it is not necessarily good and true for ideas about programming techniques, pharmaceuticals, or plant varieties, or genes. Copyright on software is not the same issue as copyright on scientific articles, and neither of them is the same issue as patents. The term "intellectual property", which lumps together copyrights and patents leads people to limit consideration to simplistic across-the-board approaches. If you would like to encourage people to distinguish the issues of different kinds of works, it makes sense for you join me in discouraging the term that lumps everything together as one issue.