From lojban-out@lojban.org Thu Dec 05 08:49:59 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 16:49:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 41320 invoked from network); 5 Dec 2002 16:49:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m12.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 Dec 2002 16:49:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Dec 2002 16:49:58 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18JzCI-0007ed-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 05 Dec 2002 08:49:58 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18JzCD-0007eM-00; Thu, 05 Dec 2002 08:49:53 -0800 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 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 X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Robin Lee Powell From: Robin Lee Powell Reply-To: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out 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