1996-02-24 - Re: The “excrable” e$

Header Data

From: Sten Drescher <stend@grendel.texas.net>
To: rah@shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga)
Message Hash: a368dbf193b8f73b430c393271ebb4daf41936bf932e80ea7101a35e14771331
Message ID: <199602241757.LAA02466@grendel.texas.net>
Reply To: <v02120d03ad54d682c80f@[]>
UTC Datetime: 1996-02-24 18:32:26 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 25 Feb 1996 02:32:26 +0800

Raw message

From: Sten Drescher <stend@grendel.texas.net>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 1996 02:32:26 +0800
To: rah@shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga)
Subject: Re: The "excrable" e$
In-Reply-To: <v02120d03ad54d682c80f@[]>
Message-ID: <199602241757.LAA02466@grendel.texas.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

On Sat, 24 Feb 1996 10:25:37 -0500, rah@shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) said:

RH> Speaking of trademarks, I had hoped that by using "e$" everywhere
RH> that we could avoid such legal mechanations, in the same vein that
RH> various mathematical notation schemes cannot be copyrighted (I
RH> think). For the lawyers out there, is it possible to do the
RH> equivalent of a GNU GPL "copy-left" with a potential trademark
RH> like "e$"?  If it is, I'd like to do that. Ubiquity is power, and
RH> all that, "excrable" symbols and all...

	Well, since a copyleft is just a copyright (legally) under a
different name, I don't see any reason that you couldn't 'sharemark'
"e$" under the trademark conditions.  Only 'problem' is that if you
don't defend a trademark, it can become public domain, but then,
that's what we want, right?

#include <disclaimer.h>                               /* Sten Drescher */
Unsolicited email advertisements will be proofread for a US$100/page fee.