Subject: [lojban] Re: Loglan

From: Steven Belknap <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 06:05:05 -0600

On Wednesday, December 4, 2002, at 07:18 PM, And Rosta wrote:

> Robin:
>> On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 12:52:06AM -0000, And Rosta wrote:
>>> Bob McIvor:
>>>> Most newcomers to TLI have looked at both languages before deciding
>>>> to go with TLI
>>>
>>> I'm curious as to what their reasons were. Do you know?
>>>
>>> (I found Loglan (word lists) shortly before Lojban. I never really
>>> made a conscious choice between them,
>>
>> I, on the other hand, did make a concious choice. I was actually
>> canvassing all sources I could find for a logical language. The
>> *instant* I discovered that Loglan was copywritten, I dropped it in
>> favour of lojban
>
> 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.
>
> --And.

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. Alas, there is nothing certain in law but the expense. As 
And points out, there isn't any vocabulary copyright statement in the 
TLI materials.

la stivn