From sentto-44114-19646-1052181336-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Mon May 05 17:36:16 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 05 May 2003 17:36:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from n33.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.101]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19CqRD-0003S5-01 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Mon, 05 May 2003 17:36:07 -0700 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-19646-1052181336-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.195] by n33.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 06 May 2003 00:35:36 -0000 X-Sender: cowan@mercury.ccil.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_6_6); 6 May 2003 00:35:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 83097 invoked from network); 6 May 2003 00:35:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 May 2003 00:35:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mercury.ccil.org) (192.190.237.100) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 May 2003 00:35:35 -0000 Received: from cowan by mercury.ccil.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 19CqQi-0007PL-00; Mon, 05 May 2003 20:35:36 -0400 To: Craig Cc: lojban@yahoogroups.com Message-ID: <20030506003536.GC27938@ccil.org> References: In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-eGroups-From: John Cowan From: John Cowan X-Yahoo-Profile: johnwcowan MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@yahoogroups.com; contact lojban-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 20:35:36 -0400 Subject: [lojban] Re: Some ideas/questions (long) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 5144 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: cowan@ccil.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list Craig scripsit: > 1. The courts have ruled that you can't copyright a language. This is how > Lojban is legal, when it is an offshoot of Loglan. What the court ruled was that "Loglan" was a generic term and not trademarkable, that's all. The question of copyrightability was not challenged by the LLG because the words had already been remade. -- I suggest you call for help, John Cowan or learn the difficult art of mud-breathing. jcowan@reutershealth.com --Great-Souled Sam http://www.ccil.org/~cowan ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. http://us.click.yahoo.com/cjB9SD/od7FAA/uetFAA/GSaulB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/