From: Doug Ewell (
Date: Wed May 17 2000 - 10:38:37 EDT

Michael Everson's posting was right on target. Proponents of the
reversed copyright sign need to demonstrate, like everyone else, that
the proposed character is in actual use. The rules are no different
for anyone else.

U+20AC EURO SIGN was a justified exception, because the commission that
created it had the authority and the power to *make* it a widely used
character. There was no guesswork involved. U+20AC cannot be used as
an example to encode other newly created characters that *might* come
into general use.

Like many others, I had heard the term "copyleft" many times and
understood the general concept, but had never seen this character in
association with it. I surfed through the FSF/GNU site and was surprised
to find *zero* instances of the character. That can't be a good sign for
those attempting to get it into Unicode.

If encoded, there is no reason the character should not be called
REVERSED COPYRIGHT SIGN. That is certainly as descriptive as any other
Unicode character name, and more so than some. As a bonus, the meaning
is somewhat elastic: reversed "copyright sign" vs. "reversed copyright"
sign. Anyone who insisted on calling it COPYLEFT SIGN or even FREE
COPYRIGHT SIGN might appear to the Technical Committee to be soliciting
support for the FSF rather than proposing a needed character (slogan:
"Unicode encodes characters, not causes").

There could be a note like "= copyleft" or "= used with free software,"
but nothing mentioning GNU or FSF, of course.

-Doug Ewell
 Fullerton, California

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:02 EDT