> -----Original Message-----
> From: EXT Michael Everson [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 12:06 PM
> To: Unicode List
> Subject: RE: COPYLEFT SIGN
> Ar 06:52 -0800 2000-05-16, scríobh email@example.com:
> >For what it's worth and as if this were a vote conducted on
> this mailing
> >list, I don't like the idea of adding the copyleft sign.
> Whatever the moral
> >or philosophical grounding, it's still a logo.
> Is it? I thought it was used as a replacement so strings like:
Yes, it is. A "logo" does not (only) indicate, for example, "a registered
of a commercial entity, say, rendered in a certain font" (e.g. IBM). It's
an identifying sign/phrase/whatever.
> ©1999 Michael Everson. All rights reserved.
> ()) Michael Everson. No rights reserved.
-- Jarkko Hietaniemi <firstname.lastname@example.org>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:02 EDT