> >> Personally, I strongly object to the entire idea of the inclusion
> >> of this symbol into Unicode. I'd hate to see Unicode become a
> >> tool of Stallman's (or anyone else's) personal agenda.
> >Including the symbol would not make Unicode become such.
> But it would set an undesirable precedent. Copyleft represents a
> software license agreement. Do we want to go there? Suppose
> Microsoft designs a symbol to represent their EULA. If we asign
> Unicode space to Copyleft, we will have to assign one to EULA. And
> to every other company in the world that will follow the lead.
> I don't think Unicode is the place for company logos. If people
> want to use the FSF company logo (which is what copyleft is), they
> should use the private space.
Apparently, you haven't read my proposal carefully enough. The GNU
Public License (GPL) from the FSF is just one of the licenses which
meet the requirements for a `copyleft' sign, so to say. A lot of
other, not so restricted licenses do also fit.
Note that my proposal is *not*, I repeat, *not* the idea of the FSF.
I've asked Stallman about his opinion, and he told me that he `liked
the idea', and that he supported this. That's all.
I agree that `copyleft' is a kind of certificate, but it is not
limited to a single organization, license, etc., and there is a high
chance that many people will use it all over the world. Hopefully,
you agree that the idea behind `copyleft' is worth to be supported.
BTW, I fully accept `INVERSED COPYRIGHT SIGN (=copyleft)'. The name
is really unimportant -- I'll change the proposal accordingly.
In the next time, I'll try to find documents which use the copyleft
symbol. This will be quite difficult, I think, since there is no
ASCII representation possible (and source code is the classical place
for such a symbol).
Are there some guide lines which kind of documents should be cited?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:02 EDT