I disagree with how much it matters what it is called. In the legal landscape what you call it is everything and in terms of regulatory requirements, the difference between a "commodity" and a "currency" can be a pretty large stack of paperwork and a pretty big list of "can's and cannot's".
Your missing the point. Regulators don't ask YOU what your product is. They will TELL YOU and then those list of choices above apply. So if the Bitcoin Foundation called Bitcoins commodities, or virtual property, or holy carrots it would have absolutely no value under the law. Regulators would say "Bitcoin is monetary value and subject to xzy". They don't take what you chose to name it into consideration.
I mean do you also think that if you sold gambling products under a different name, say "true random number commodity contracts" it would magically be exempt from regulations/prohibitions on gambling.
Start calling Bitcoins "magical carrots" it won't exempt Bitcoin from anything the state says it is regulated by. The state is the one with the guns and monopoly on violence. They TELL (not ASK) you what laws apply. If you are lucky they don't do it in a carpicious or retroactive fashion. Once they TELL you then you can decide if you want to play or work around that.
That's interesting cause if the regulators want to bring things to court, there should be at least a slight hint of ambiguity in the legal definition of currency, but there isn't, it looks almost as if the original legislators were so concerned that they can not be clear enough about what's currency, that they go to great length to elaborate, repetitively, exhaustively, that it must be something issued by a government.