From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Thu Dec 05 08:49:52 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 05 Dec 2002 08:49:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from rlpowell by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18JzC8-0007eA-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 05 Dec 2002 08:49:48 -0800 Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 08:49:48 -0800 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Loglan Message-ID: <20021205164948.GQ22111@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i From: Robin Lee Powell X-archive-position: 3079 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 06:05:05AM -0600, Steven Belknap wrote: > On Wednesday, December 4, 2002, at 07:18 PM, And Rosta wrote: > >Yes, that is a good reason. (I am assuming you mean what I would call > >"copyrighted" and not "copywritten".) I have never seen a TLI > >statement of its position on copyright, though. > > Why is that a good reason? It may have spooked the learly > lojbanistani, but an attorney friend with considerable expertise in > intellectual property rights tells me that such a claim would be > laughed out of a courtroom. You *are* aware that the LLG *did* have to go through legal work on this precise issue, right? Given the option of two equally valid languages, one of which had all its stuff explicitely in the public domain and the other which didn't... Well, having a closed-source language just seemed really stupid to me at the time. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin. .i le pamoi velru'e zo'u jmaji le plibu taxfu .i le remoi velru'e zo'u mo .i le cimoi velru'e zo'u ba'e prali .uisai http://www.lojban.org/ *** to sa'a cu'u lei pibyta'u cridrnoma toi