www directs me to 'larousse.wikipedia.org' -- larousse is a great name, but for an innocent user it looks confusing. Why can't we continue to use 'www' or 'en' as the host name?
Je Lundo 19 Majo 2003 00:52, Karl Eichwalder skribis:
www directs me to 'larousse.wikipedia.org' -- larousse is a great name, but for an innocent user it looks confusing. Why can't we continue to use 'www' or 'en' as the host name?
Larousse is just the name of the machine, and shouldn't generally be linked to directly; at some point in the near future it will probably not serve wiki pages under that name anymore, but just under en. and www.
It's only been linked to under its own name temporarily so that people whose DNS servers are way behind can get at the new server. It's been up for a few days now, I'm not seeing any more English-Wikipedia connections on the old server, and I've taken the old server's copy of the wiki offline, so at this point anyone who isn't able to get at the new server via www.wikipedia.org is in trouble. :)
If something is redirecting you automatically to the larousse.wikipedia.org hostname, please tell me exactly what it is so I can fix it.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Brion Vibber wrote:
Larousse is just the name of the machine, and shouldn't generally be linked to directly; at some point in the near future it will probably
Larousse is also a trademark for a French commercial encyclopedia, http://www.larousse.fr/ and http://www.encyclopedie-larousse.fr/
Are the other servers named Britannica and Brockhaus? I would advise against the use of these names, to avoid legal problems.
Lars Aronsson (lars@aronsson.se) wrote:
Brion Vibber wrote:
Larousse is just the name of the machine, and shouldn't generally be linked to directly; at some point in the near future it will probably
Larousse is also a trademark for a French commercial encyclopedia, http://www.larousse.fr/ and http://www.encyclopedie-larousse.fr/
Are the other servers named Britannica and Brockhaus? I would advise against the use of these names, to avoid legal problems.
-- Lars Aronsson (lars@aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se/
It is true that it is a US registered trademark see USPTO.gov No. 0836321, 1939180, but at larousse.wikipedia.org it is only being used for testing purposes, it probably does not dilute the french tradmark or otherwise create confusion. Also many educational web sites use the word larousse, even on wikipedia you can find reference to Larousse, so if someone finds their way to Wikipedia via larousse they will get a page about: [[larousse Gatronomique]].
As Larousse is a French publisher of French books, how can there be confusion? It is obviously not well known enough to have acquired a secondary meaning under US law, one could argue that their protection only extends to products and services where the French language must be a major component, as far as I can tell they have not taken any steps to publish dictionaries or encyclopedias in English.
La rousse is also a french word meaning a color between orange and red. I thought it was a reference an ironic reference to the Department of Homeland Security. It can also mean a red headed woman, as in ''une belle fille rousse', la rousse'.
Perhaps to keep Pliny company on those cold nights? Alex 756
Alex R. wrote:
As Larousse is a French publisher of French books, how can there be confusion?
Look Alex, (1) I'm not trying to win an *argument*, and (2) I'm not having an argument with *you*. All I said was that I would recommend against using names that are trademarks. You are free to ignore my recommendations. I'm not speaking for Larousse and I'm not a lawyer. Actually, your response makes me regret I mentioned this at all. This is my last posting on this topic.
Lars Aronsson (lars@aronsson.se) said:
Alex R. wrote:
As Larousse is a French publisher of French books, how can there be confusion?
Look Alex, (1) I'm not trying to win an *argument*, and (2) I'm not having an argument with *you*. All I said was that I would recommend against using names that are trademarks. You are free to ignore my recommendations. I'm not speaking for Larousse and I'm not a lawyer. Actually, your response makes me regret I mentioned this at all. This is my last posting on this topic.
I am not arguing with anyone. I am just stating my opinion, which is what I thought this discussion list was for. If it is for something else, would someone please let me know, as that is not what it is being represented to be.
I was responding to your opinion, which is that there might be a legal problem using the word "laroussee" and in fact I was agreeing with you (even more so than other posts) as the word larousse IS registered with the USPTO. Technically you are right maybe Wikipedia should worry about using this name even if it is the name of an encyclopediest or the name of a Red Head Linux Server or even what I say when I am ordering an amber beer in Montreal. ''Donnez-moi la rousse, SVP!''
The point is not all use of a trademark is infringement of that mark, I am not offering Wikipedia my legal opinion (though I do admit to being a lawyer, I hope that doesn't make anyone nervous) but just stating what to me seems pretty obvious, it is the French word that Larousse is trying to protect as a mark for its French encyclopedias, not for all uses of the word. Unlike copyright trademarks must be used to be protected, and while there is an argument that the word larousse is a registered trademark referring to encyclopedias, it is also true that they only use it in reference to French encyclopedias, it is maybe like saying that that word Exxon cannot be used by an insurance company, well Exxon refers to oil and gas, not to insurance, they are different things, and I was arguing that there was no underlying confusion between the use of the name Larousse as a server for an English encyclopedia web site, not that it wasn't a trademark infringement, only a federal district judge can make that determination and that determination is based, in part, about their being confusion between the two uses. I hope the above does not upset you, Lars, it was not my intention. Alex756
On Tue, 20 May 2003, Alex T. wrote:
The point is not all use of a trademark is infringement of that mark, I am not offering Wikipedia my legal opinion (though I do admit to being a lawyer, I hope that doesn't make anyone nervous) but just stating what to me seems pretty obvious, it is the French word that Larousse is trying to protect as a mark for its French encyclopedias, not for all uses of the word. Unlike copyright trademarks must be used to be protected, and while there is an argument that the word larousse is a registered trademark referring to encyclopedias, it is also true that they only use it in reference to French encyclopedias
My copy of the "New Larousse Encyclopaedia of Animal Life" is an English-language encyclopaedia, although it is based on a French work. I'm not making any legal point at all, but I must admit that Wikipedia's use of the name did strike me as odd. A bit like Microsoft calling one of its servers "macintosh", and then saying, "Yeah, but we named after an esteemed computer scientist, not the rival brand of computers..."
Oliver
+-------------------------------------------+ | Oliver Pereira | | Dept. of Electronics and Computer Science | | University of Southampton | | omp199@ecs.soton.ac.uk | +-------------------------------------------+
"Oliver Pereira" wrote on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 5:00 AM Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] larousse.wikipedia.org?
My copy of the "New Larousse Encyclopaedia of Animal Life" is an English-language encyclopaedia, although it is based on a French work. I'm not making any legal point at all, but I must admit that Wikipedia's use of the name did strike me as odd. A bit like Microsoft calling one of its servers "macintosh", and then saying, "Yeah, but we named after an esteemed computer scientist, not the rival brand of computers..."
Oliver
I think that the analogy with Macintosh may be a bit wrong. If someone gets linked to Wikipedia by putting the word larousse into a brower, search engine, etc., in light of Larousse publishing English encyclopedias I think that they might have a trademark infringement issue, the word, in English is considered fanciful. It is not an actual English word and it was not MrLarousse or Drlarousse it is the exact infringing word. And wasn't Larousse the man the founder of Larousse the company? This is the whole point of a trademark, you can't call Spanish sparkling wine champagne as champagne is a trademark identified with the production of sparking wine in a particular French region.
Since it links to an encyclopedia there is not an issue of secondary meaning. This is the protection that Larousse was seeking when it applied for a trademark and got it from the US government.
I am just saying here that one might have a hard time convincing a federal judge, in light of the use of Larousse as a trademark name and being used for English encyclopedias that its trademark was not infringed. Of course the infringement may be insignificant, but that is not the issue, is it?
Alex756
+-------------------------------------------+ | Oliver Pereira | | Dept. of Electronics and Computer Science | | University of Southampton | | omp199@ecs.soton.ac.uk | +-------------------------------------------+
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Alex R. wrote: | | wasn't Larousse the man the founder of Larousse the company? This is | the whole point of a trademark, you can't call Spanish sparkling wine | champagne as champagne is a trademark identified with the production | of sparking wine in a particular French region. | | Alex756
On the other hand, sparkling wine from California ''is'' called champagne. Trademarks, especially in the international arena, are seldom absolute.
- -- ~ Sean Barrett | Vortex goggles on? Here we go! --Calvin ~ sean@epoptic.com |
On Wed, 21 May 2003, Sean Barrett wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Alex R. wrote: | | wasn't Larousse the man the founder of Larousse the company? This is | the whole point of a trademark, you can't call Spanish sparkling wine | champagne as champagne is a trademark identified with the production | of sparking wine in a particular French region. | | Alex756
On the other hand, sparkling wine from California ''is'' called champagne. Trademarks, especially in the international arena, are seldom absolute.
It's a bad example anyway, because 'Champagne' is not a trademark. A trademark is owned by a single company (although it might allow others to use it). "Champagne" is a _product name_ (and the European Union has specified that only when it is created in a certain region, the product name may be used).
Andre Engels
Andre Engels" <engels@uni-koblenz.de wrote:
It's a bad example anyway, because 'Champagne' is not a trademark. A
trademark
is owned by a single company (although it might allow others to use it). "Champagne" is a _product name_ (and the European Union has specified that only when it is created in a certain region, the product name may be
used).
Andre Engels
Trademarks do not have to be owned by a business entity, they may be owned by trade association, or regional governments and be licensed to be used by people who conform with the standards that the body is promulgating including the place of origin of the goods (commonly called appellation of origin trademarks) Here is the text of sec. 2 of the definition of certification mark, a type of trademark:
2. In this Act, "certification mark" «marque de certification»
"certification mark" means a mark that is used for the purpose of distinguishing or so as to distinguish wares or services that are of a defined standard with respect to
(a) the character or quality of the wares or services,
(b) the working conditions under which the wares have been produced or the services performed,
(c) the class of persons by whom the wares have been produced or the services performed, or
(d) the area within which the wares have been produced or the services performed,
from wares or services that are not of that defined standard.
Regarding geographic origin the Canadian act also defines that term in sec. 2:
"geographical indication" « indication géographique » "geographical indication" means, in respect of a wine or spirit, an indication that
(a) identifies the wine or spirit as originating in the territory of a WTO Member, or a region or locality of that territory, where a quality, reputation or other characteristic of the wine or spirit is essentially attributable to its geographical origin, and
(b) except in the case of an indication identifying a wine or spirit originating in Canada, is protected by the laws applicable to that WTO Member;
Alex756
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
tarquin wrote: | Reality check: | it's a server name. | NOBODY is going to see it except the devs and the occasional mention of | "our Larousse server is down" on this mailing list.
Ah, such savoir-plaindre! Have some champagne de la Californie and join the bagarre.
[This message is close-smilied for the humor-impared.]
- -- ~ Sean Barrett | Vortex goggles on? Here we go! --Calvin ~ sean@epoptic.com |
tarquin wrote:
*much debate*
Reality check: it's a server name. NOBODY is going to see it except the devs and the occasional mention of "our Larousse server is down" on this mailing list.
After this long discussion I know why I call hosts 'mail' or 'www' or 'www1', noboby will complain about copyright, only about the unimaginative sysop;)
Tarquin wrote:
Reality check: it's a server name. NOBODY is going to see it except the devs and the occasional mention of "our Larousse server is down" on this mailing list.
This is what it comes down to. Is the name "larousse" going to promulgated to the outside? My understanding is no ... people won't even find it in the DNS servers. A Google search for "larousse Wikipedia" should never find anything besides our articles on Larousse and the discussions on this maling list.
If that's not the case ... then we may have a problem. But that's my understanding of the set-up.
-- Toby
On 21 May 2003 at 14:33, Toby Bartels wrote:
This is what it comes down to. Is the name "larousse" going to promulgated to the outside? My understanding is no ... people won't even find it in the DNS servers. A Google search for "larousse Wikipedia" should never find anything besides our articles on Larousse and the discussions on this maling list.
If that's not the case ... then we may have a problem. But that's my understanding of the set-up.
Oh sure, the name is part of the DNS system. It has to be. Towit:
nslookup larousse.wikipedia.org
Name: larousse.wikipedia.org Address: 130.94.122.199
That said, it will only be seen if someone goes looking for it.
Bill
Je Ĵaŭdo 22 Majo 2003 08:11, Bill@ng3k.com skribis:
On 21 May 2003 at 14:33, Toby Bartels wrote:
This is what it comes down to. Is the name "larousse" going to promulgated to the outside? My understanding is no ... people won't even find it in the DNS servers. A Google search for "larousse Wikipedia" should never find anything besides our articles on Larousse and the discussions on this maling list.
If that's not the case ... then we may have a problem. But that's my understanding of the set-up.
Oh sure, the name is part of the DNS system.
I should point out that the way our DNS is set up, *every* possible subdomain exists, should one look for it:
$ host webster.wikipedia.org webster.wikipedia.org has address 130.94.122.197 $ host encarta.wikipedia.org encarta.wikipedia.org has address 130.94.122.197 $ host groliers.wikipedia.org groliers.wikipedia.org has address 130.94.122.197 $ host goatse.cx.wikipedia.org goatse.cx.wikipedia.org has address 130.94.122.197 $ host akfljsdiovw.wikipedia.org akfljsdiovw.wikipedia.org has address 130.94.122.197
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Brion Vibber wrote:
I should point out that the way our DNS is set up, *every* possible subdomain exists, should one look for it:
$ host webster.wikipedia.org webster.wikipedia.org has address 130.94.122.197 $ host encarta.wikipedia.org encarta.wikipedia.org has address 130.94.122.197 $ host groliers.wikipedia.org groliers.wikipedia.org has address 130.94.122.197 $ host goatse.cx.wikipedia.org goatse.cx.wikipedia.org has address 130.94.122.197 $ host akfljsdiovw.wikipedia.org akfljsdiovw.wikipedia.org has address 130.94.122.197
So am I correct to think that nobody will ever *run*across* <larousse.wikipedia.org> -- that is, they'll never find it without typing in "larousse" at some point themselves?
-- Toby
Je Ĵaŭdo 22 Majo 2003 18:12, Toby Bartels skribis:
So am I correct to think that nobody will ever *run*across* <larousse.wikipedia.org> -- that is, they'll never find it without typing in "larousse" at some point themselves?
Oh sure they will, if they're reading the mailing list archives, if they're reading Wikipedia History pages which talk about our servers, if they're subscribed to wikitech-l and we talk about doing something on larousse, etc. But nobody's advertising anything like "Visit larousse.wikipedia.org, the free encyclopedia!" Nor are we slapping URLs links to larousse.wikipedia.org all over everything. We are not using "Larousse" as a business name, nor as a product name, nor as the name of a service we offer. It's just a cuter, easier to remember way of referring to "the computer reachable at 130.94.122.199".
If any of the temporary links directly on larousse.wikipedia.org found their way into search engines, they should be gradually removed by the present redirect to www.wikipedia.org.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Brion Vibber wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
So am I correct to think that nobody will ever *run*across* <larousse.wikipedia.org> -- that is, they'll never find it without typing in "larousse" at some point themselves?
Oh sure they will, if they're reading the mailing list archives, if they're reading Wikipedia History pages which talk about our servers, if they're subscribed to wikitech-l and we talk about doing something on larousse, etc.
Right, I covered that in an earlier post but forgot it in the last one. But that's all OK.
-- Toby
Andre Engels wrote:
On the other hand, sparkling wine from California ''is'' called champagne. Trademarks, especially in the international arena, are seldom absolute.
It's a bad example anyway, because 'Champagne' is not a trademark. A trademark is owned by a single company (although it might allow others to use it). "Champagne" is a _product name_ (and the European Union has specified that only when it is created in a certain region, the product name may be used).
One cannot confuse American champagne with the real stuff. It's all in the taste. Some producers do use the expression that their sparkling wine is produced in the "méthede champennoise".
Ec
To Ray Saintonge
One cannot confuse American champagne with the real stuff. It's all in the taste. Some producers do use the expression that their sparkling wine is produced in the "méthede champennoise".
"méthode champennoise". Méthode rather than méthede. Méthode like english method, I think. The process of fabrication.
End of the french cultural minute :-)
Alvaro
Has there been any resolution on the trademark battle between Budweiser beer of Czechoslovakia and Budweiser beer of the United States?
Zoe
--- Andre Engels engels@uni-koblenz.de wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2003, Sean Barrett wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Alex R. wrote: | | wasn't Larousse the man the founder of Larousse
the company? This is
| the whole point of a trademark, you can't call
Spanish sparkling wine
| champagne as champagne is a trademark identified
with the production
| of sparking wine in a particular French region. | | Alex756
On the other hand, sparkling wine from California
''is'' called
champagne. Trademarks, especially in the
international arena, are seldom
absolute.
It's a bad example anyway, because 'Champagne' is not a trademark. A trademark is owned by a single company (although it might allow others to use it). "Champagne" is a _product name_ (and the European Union has specified that only when it is created in a certain region, the product name may be used).
Andre Engels
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org
http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com
Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com said:
On the other hand, sparkling wine from California ''is'' called champagne. Trademarks, especially in the international arena, are seldom absolute.
We are not talking about international trademark issues here, Larousse has registered their mark in the United States (see previous post) and is using it in the United States for English encyclopedia publications.
Regarding the use of the word champagne in the United States (excuse me but I am Canadian) that is because the word champagne is not recognized as being a trademark in the United States, it is considered to have a regular meaning in the dictionary.
This comparison is thus inappropriate because there is no word "larousse" in American English dictionaries. Words like macintosh (a type of apple), and champagne (in the US) are words that have regular meaning and cannot be trademarked, even IF they can be trademarked for a fanciful use it is limited to the product that they are marking until the TM becomes so well known as to take on a secondary meaning, or it becomes so widespread that it becomes the same as the product it marks such as in singer, which was once a word that meant sewing machine (but no more) or xerox copy, which many people still use when they mean photocopy. Campagne is a trademark (and even an origin of appellation mark) that is recognized in many countires. It is one of the reasons that these products need to be relabeled in these countries as "sparkling wines".
Larousse does not appear to fit into the category of champagne, macintosh, xerox or any other exceptions. The only exception would be if it were not used, or that it was being used in a different class than it was registered. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it cannot use larousse, a trademark registered in the US to be used for enclyclopedias in the US. Using it as a mark to allow people to recognize Wikipedia under trademark law (with all the previous caveats added here by reference) appears to be infringement and may create confusion between Wikipedia and Larousse. Using it as a subdomain name, in my opinion does not protect it from confusion, it as if Pepsi had a web site called www.coca-cola.pepsi.com. I doubt that Coca-Cola would tolerate such an infringement.
I agree with Lars Aronsson (lars@aronsson.se) regarding the fact pattern as presented -- use of a trademarked encyclopedia name would likely be considered infringement and I doubt that if the TM owner found out about it that they would tolerate it. At this point the infringement is probably de minimus and would only lead to nominal damages ($1), but if it started popping up in search engines I am sure Wikipedia would hear from Larousse's US trademark representatives who would be probably more than happy if Wikipedia agrees to cease and desist using such a mark.
Alex756
--- Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Alex R. wrote: | | wasn't Larousse the man the founder of Larousse the company? This is | the whole point of a trademark, you can't call Spanish sparkling wine | champagne as champagne is a trademark identified with the production | of sparking wine in a particular French region. | | Alex756
On the other hand, sparkling wine from California ''is'' called champagne. Trademarks, especially in the international arena, are seldom absolute.
In any case, that was real nice to give a "french" name to the server and we appreciated the choice.
This said, trademark or no trademark, the french Champagne is best.
Initially, the Champagne region was a very poor region, very very low yields due to soils not really fit for agriculture. It was refered (or rr ?) to as "Champagne pouilleuse" ("poux" are lices).
Later, with progress in agricultural techniques, soils were improved. It is now one of the richest regions in terms of agriculture. We grow there wine (for Champagne in particular), potatoes (1000 euros of margin for an hectare) and beets.
Single women ! marry Champagne farmers. Thanks to potatoes, beets and all the money from great Champagne exports, they are *rich* guys.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com
On the other hand, sparkling wine from California ''is'' called champagne. Trademarks, especially in the international arena, are seldom absolute.
In any case, that was real nice to give a "french" name to the server and we appreciated the choice.
This said, trademark or no trademark, the french Champagne is best.
And why not renaming larousse to champagne ? It seems there is a consensus. It is not in the name that lays the value but in the «bottle». :)
--- julien tayon julien@tayon.net wrote:
On the other hand, sparkling wine from
California
''is'' called champagne. Trademarks, especially in the international arena, are seldom absolute.
In any case, that was real nice to give a "french" name to the server and we appreciated the choice.
This said, trademark or no trademark, the french Champagne is best.
And why not renaming larousse to champagne ? It seems there is a consensus. It is not in the name that lays the value but in the �bottle�. :)
not only in the bottle also in the "content" of the bottle
non-tech thought
-----
How was your speech yesterday ?
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com
Anthere wrote:
--- julien tayon julien@tayon.net wrote:
On the other hand, sparkling wine from
California
''is'' called champagne. Trademarks, especially in the international arena, are seldom absolute.
In any case, that was real nice to give a "french" name to the server and we appreciated the choice.
This said, trademark or no trademark, the french Champagne is best.
And why not renaming larousse to champagne ? It seems there is a consensus. It is not in the name that lays the value but in the «bottle». :)
not only in the bottle also in the "content" of the bottle
non-tech thought
Hmmm! Wikipedia, the fine champagne of encyclopedias!
Ec
On Wed, 21 May 2003 09:56:59 -0400, Alex R. alex756@nyc.rr.com gave utterance to the following:
I think that the analogy with Macintosh may be a bit wrong. If someone gets linked to Wikipedia by putting the word larousse into a brower, search engine, etc., in light of Larousse publishing English encyclopedias
That isn't going to happen. "Larousse" is only temporarily visible during the transition to the new webserver. The name will not be used at all in public once the transition is complete. My hosts use server names which include "Scooby" and "Scrappy" but the only reason I know that is through doing contract work for them (you might see it on a tracerout result, too). Will Hanna-Barbera file suit? Not likely.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Richard Grevers wrote: | My hosts use server names | which include "Scooby" and "Scrappy" but the only reason I know that is | through doing contract work for them (you might see it on a tracerout | result, too). Will Hanna-Barbera file suit? Not likely.
Similarly, the Jet Propulsion Lab's mail servers are named for the Jetsons -- Elroy delivered all my mail for quite a few years. Should JPL, CalTech, or NASA worried?
My servers are named Orwen, Orgoch, and Orddu. For two Wikicents, who did I lift the names from? No fair googling.
- -- ~ Sean Barrett | Vortex goggles on? Here we go! --Calvin ~ sean@epoptic.com |
Sean Barrett wrote:
My servers are named Orwen, Orgoch, and Orddu. For two Wikicents, who did I lift the names from? No fair googling.
These are the Fates in ancient Wales. They may be found today in Lloyd Alexander's Prydain Chronicles (but he didn't invent them).
-- Toby
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Toby Bartels wrote: | Sean Barrett wrote: | | |>My servers are named Orwen, Orgoch, and Orddu. For two Wikicents, who |>did I lift the names from? No fair googling. | | | These are the Fates in ancient Wales. | They may be found today in Lloyd Alexander's Prydain Chronicles | (but he didn't invent them).
Very good. And even tho Disney made a cartoon of "The Black Cauldron," I don't expect them to sue me.
[Okay, go ahead and insert a Spanish Inquisition joke here.]
- -- ~ Sean Barrett | When trouble arises and things look bad, ~ sean@epoptic.com | there is always one individual who perceives ~ | a solution and is willing to take command. ~ | Very often, that individual is crazy.
Sean Barrett wrote:
Very good. And even tho Disney made a cartoon of "The Black Cauldron," I don't expect them to sue me.
Mercifully, the memory of that travesty has been enough removed from my brain that I don't even know if Orddu and her sisters ever made it in there. The only thing that I really remember is the horrible interpretation of Gurgi (*shudder*).
-- Toby
(Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se):
Larousse is just the name of the machine, and shouldn't generally be linked to directly; at some point in the near future it will probably
Larousse is also a trademark for a French commercial encyclopedia, http://www.larousse.fr/ and http://www.encyclopedie-larousse.fr/
Utterly irrelevant. Larousse is just the name of a famous historical encyclopedist. It's a trademark only in its use as a brand name to sell encyclopedias. Since we aren't using the name as a brand (we're not using it for any public purpose whatsoever--it's a private internal machine name), there's no trademark issue.
--- Lee Daniel Crocker lee@piclab.com wrote:
(Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se):
Larousse is just the name of the machine, and
shouldn't generally be
linked to directly; at some point in the near
future it will probably
Larousse is also a trademark for a French
commercial encyclopedia,
http://www.encyclopedie-larousse.fr/
Utterly irrelevant. Larousse is just the name of a famous historical encyclopedist. It's a trademark only in its use as a brand name to sell encyclopedias. Since we aren't using the name as a brand (we're not using it for any public purpose whatsoever--it's a private internal machine name), there's no trademark issue.
A thought for those of you poor people who don't know french. Another spelling for Larousse is "La Rousse", which could mean "Red Head" talking about a woman.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com
Je Mardo 20 Majo 2003 10:22, Anthere skribis:
A thought for those of you poor people who don't know french. Another spelling for Larousse is "La Rousse", which could mean "Red Head" talking about a woman.
No small surprise, she is running on Red Head Linux. ;)
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com writes:
Larousse is just the name of the machine, and shouldn't generally be linked to directly; at some point in the near future it will probably not serve wiki pages under that name anymore, but just under en. and www.
Thanks for the info. Wondering why my providers DNS server is that slow this time; but I can wait.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org