From sentto-44114-19647-1052182176-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Mon May 05 17:50:20 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 05 May 2003 17:50:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from n1.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.64]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Cqel-0003V8-01 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Mon, 05 May 2003 17:50:07 -0700 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-19647-1052182176-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.196] by n1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 06 May 2003 00:49:36 -0000 X-Sender: ragnarok@pobox.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_6_6); 6 May 2003 00:49:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 77331 invoked from network); 6 May 2003 00:49:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 May 2003 00:49:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 May 2003 00:49:34 -0000 Received: from craig [209.42.200.60] by smtp.intrex.net (SMTPD32-7.13) id A69D3D4A0076; Mon, 05 May 2003 20:49:33 -0400 To: Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20030506003536.GC27938@ccil.org> X-Declude-Sender: ragnarok@pobox.com [209.42.200.60] From: "Craig" X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl 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 20:49:42 -0400 Subject: [lojban] Re: Some ideas/questions (long) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-archive-position: 5145 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: ragnarok@pobox.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list >> 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. But we copied most of the grammar, no? Oskar's proposed new language would not have all its words in common with lojban - it couldn't, as they would be monosyllables. ------------------------ 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/