From sbelknap@UIC.EDU Thu Dec 05 08:40:00 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 5 Dec 2002 16:39:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 14791 invoked from network); 5 Dec 2002 16:39:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m14.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 Dec 2002 16:39:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Dec 2002 16:39:59 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18Jz2d-0007ak-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 05 Dec 2002 08:39:59 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18Jz24-0007aL-00; Thu, 05 Dec 2002 08:39:24 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 05 Dec 2002 08:39:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from larch.cc.uic.edu ([128.248.155.164]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 18Jz1z-0007aC-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 05 Dec 2002 08:39:19 -0800 Received: (qmail 13859 invoked from network); 5 Dec 2002 16:39:15 -0000 Received: from cis5044.uicomp.uic.edu (HELO uic.edu) (128.248.250.44) by larch.cc.uic.edu with SMTP; 5 Dec 2002 16:39:15 -0000 Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 06:05:05 -0600 Subject: [lojban] Re: Loglan Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v548) Cc: To: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk In-Reply-To: Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.548) X-archive-position: 3078 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: sbelknap@uic.edu Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: Steven Belknap Reply-To: sbelknap@uic.edu X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=810567 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