Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

NCNC (was: Conlang copyright)

Expand Messages
  • R A Brown
    ... I guess the /kr/ alliteration has made the phrase attractive. It would seem, however, that the phrase was originally Christian - not monarchist - and meant
    Message 1 of 169 , Sep 30, 2009
      Jeff Rollin wrote:
      > Of course, one could point out that the phrase No Cross, No Crown is, in
      > some way, either inherently Christian and monarchist or inherently anti-
      > such! ;-)

      I guess the /kr/ alliteration has made the phrase
      attractive. It would seem, however, that the phrase was
      originally Christian - not monarchist - and meant that
      unless one was prepared to take up one's cross daily one
      would not be worthy of the crown of glory - a similar idea
      to the modern secular "No pain, no gain".

      The current Conlang list meaning "no discussion of religion
      or politics" seems to be a comparatively recent
      re-interpretation of the phrase. John Cowan, who many will
      remember as an erstwhile active participant on this list for
      many years, has an interesting piece about the phrase:

      http://recycledknowledge.blogspot.com/2006/05/no-cross-no-crown.html


      --
      Ray
      ==================================
      http://www.carolandray.plus.com
      ==================================
      Nid rhy hen neb i ddysgu.
      There's none too old to learn.
      [WELSH PROVERB]
    • Galen Buttitta
      My apologies for being so late on the response here, but I found the Copyright Office rejection for D ni:
      Message 169 of 169 , May 7, 2014
        My apologies for being so late on the response here, but I found the
        Copyright Office rejection for D'ni:

        <
        http://www.ipmall.info/hosted_resources/CopyrightAppeals/2004/Mark%20Hendricksen.pdf
        >


        On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Tristan <tongues+list@...> wrote:

        > > While *scripts* may not be able to be copyrighted (it'd be nice to see
        > the
        > > judgement on that D'Ni case you're referring to, depending on how broad
        > or
        > > was written, it might be useful as jurisprudence on conlangs too),
        > *fonts*
        > > definitely are! So you may not for instance claim copyright on the Latin
        > > script, but Arial is definitely copyrighted! Once again, that's because
        > > while a script is a concept, a font is the expression of such a concept,
        > > which makes them a perfect fit for copyright.
        >
        > Not in the US.
        >
        > You can copyright software though, and lots of modern typefaces are
        > shipped as something that the court considers software.
        >
        > More or less this means that it's legal to distribute images or printed
        > material with any font you like, but not the (non-bitmap) font itself (or
        > say, a pdf with the font embedded in it, unless it's fair use.)
        >
        > Patents and Trademarks still apply though.
        >
        > See <
        > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property_protection_of_typefaces
        > >
        > for better citations.
        >
        > tristan
        >
        > --
        > All original matter is hereby placed immediately under the public domain.
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.