From lojbab@lojban.org Sun Oct 04 09:04:33 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-board); Sun, 04 Oct 2009 09:04:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eastrmmtao101.cox.net ([68.230.240.7]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MuTZN-0006sp-B9 for llg-board@lojban.org; Sun, 04 Oct 2009 09:04:29 -0700 Received: from eastrmimpo02.cox.net ([68.1.16.120]) by eastrmmtao101.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.00.01.00 201-2244-105-20090324) with ESMTP id <20091004160415.FCMA6358.eastrmmtao101.cox.net@eastrmimpo02.cox.net> for ; Sun, 4 Oct 2009 12:04:15 -0400 Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([70.187.235.94]) by eastrmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id og4D1c00122sj6m02g4DFJ; Sun, 04 Oct 2009 12:04:13 -0400 X-VR-Score: -80.00 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=kbhykkB-IOcA:10 a=8YJikuA2AAAA:8 a=1q8si3yez2_KRAmlgzIA:9 a=WWdvlJ0IEltLXijEql4A:7 a=Y1JUl85_Dfn7QFSAKpRhhU5ET2YA:4 a=Xy1d2M_JUfAA:10 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Message-ID: <4AC8C7F4.4060002@lojban.org> Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2009 12:06:12 -0400 From: Robert LeChevalier User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: llg-board@lojban.org Subject: [llg-board] Re: "Community edited version" of CLL uploaded to the wiki References: <20091004134024.GA3835@nvg.org> In-Reply-To: <20091004134024.GA3835@nvg.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-archive-position: 567 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: llg-board-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: llg-board-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: lojbab@lojban.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: llg-board@lojban.org X-list: llg-board Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: >>From IRC: > > 15:30 < remod> sorry was meant for florolf. But if you are interested, I've > attached the CLL PDF to the lojban.org page: > http://www.lojban.org/tiki/The+Complete+Lojban+Language > 15:30 < remod> there's also a "single htnl page" versio > 15:30 < remod> version* > > 1) Did anyone approve this? I am sure no one did. Only the Board or possibly the byfy has the authority. > 2) Doesn't this count as a modified version of CLL, If they made changes than it is modified. I have not given the unmodified master of CLL to anyone. >for which permission to distribute is required? If we leave it up on our site, then we have effectively given permission. > 3) Even if it is a "verbatim copy" as required by the licence, and it is legal to distribute, should _we_ do the distributing? IF we want to distribute a verbatim copy, it should be provably verbatim by being based on the unmodified master. > I think it is unfortunate that there now exists a version of the CLL that is superior to the printed version, If it has not been reindexed, it is questionable that it is superior. >but now that the worms are out of the can, just pulling the files off the site may not be a good move. I reluctantly think that they should be pulled, with a notice posted in its place saying that any modifications to CLL *must* be approved by byfy/the Board prior to distribution. It should state that there can be only one official version of the language, and that is presently the original CLL version. Only byfy (delegated by the board) has the authority to change that. Whoever posted it should be negotiated with, however, to ensure that s/he knows why we pulled it. It is conceivable that s/he could submit a set of changes from the original that the byfy could approve, in which case it could become the new official description (though I suggest that the changes be applied to the original master, rather than assuming that the new version contains only the indicated changes). In such a case, copies of the printed book should be sent with a set of change pages, and we might want to consider dropping the price (which we might consider doing anyway, but not without resolving this issue first). Nora opines that any modified version should also be subject to Cowan's approval as author, even if he assigned copyright to LLG, since his name is on the book, and that a modified version should be clearly marked as "modified from" so that people know that they are not getting an image of the published book. If the desire is to have a copy of the book online in order to *enable* community editing with the intent to prepare a new baseline document, I think that is a separate issue from posting a PDF that is open to downloading. I could go along with such an approach in keeping with the evolving nature of the community. IIRC, back when Alice was being translated there was a system associated with the website allowing people who are logged in to edit files which remained under change-control and recorded who made what changes. I don't remember what it was called or if it is still around, but something like that could be set up for CLL, and perhaps could end up as an alternative path to a new baseline from the currently stalled checkpoint system (if that were the case, there may be a way to incorporate the checkpointed material into CLL, perhaps in the summary chapter of selma'o or in an appendix, which also might motivate more people to work on incomplete checkpoints, perhaps in groups rather than as individual shepherds). Instead of approving checkpoints, byfy would approve chapters. Draft text would not be in a PDF format, which might protect the interest we have in the current baseline document, while the changes are being made. lojbab