From lojbab@lojban.org Wed Oct 07 11:15:09 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-board); Wed, 07 Oct 2009 11:15:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eastrmmtao102.cox.net ([68.230.240.8]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Mvb2W-00086f-R0 for llg-board@lojban.org; Wed, 07 Oct 2009 11:15:09 -0700 Received: from eastrmimpo01.cox.net ([68.1.16.119]) by eastrmmtao102.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.00.01.00 201-2244-105-20090324) with ESMTP id <20091007181457.RDMG1164.eastrmmtao102.cox.net@eastrmimpo01.cox.net> for ; Wed, 7 Oct 2009 14:14:57 -0400 Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([70.187.235.94]) by eastrmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp id puEw1c00G22sj6m02uEwhN; Wed, 07 Oct 2009 14:14:57 -0400 X-VR-Score: -120.00 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=Q5lYyUyzZJsA:10 a=kyNfo7_jAAAA:8 a=IIEDu9XF-Y6CbijmYCkA:9 a=5pRs8-nW6_6JgbiSZRUA:7 a=crm2w2AwgUT2NvjUZDTBM7YDSIoA:4 a=4gncF8x8hy8A:10 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Message-ID: <4ACCDA9C.1090009@lojban.org> Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 14:14:52 -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> <4AC8C7F4.4060002@lojban.org> <20091004170556.GC3835@nvg.org> <20091004172217.GD3835@nvg.org> <20091004193709.GA21532@mercury.ccil.org> <4AC9825E.5070703@lojban.org> <20091005222157.GI18623@mercury.ccil.org> <20091006193734.GL3835@nvg.org> <20091007172414.GN3835@nvg.org> In-Reply-To: <20091007172414.GN3835@nvg.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-archive-position: 585 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: > On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 04:01:57PM -0400, Matt Arnold wrote: > >>Good email. I feel your pain when it comes to permission, both as >>respectful etiquette, and as a useful resource for making sure they >>get it right. I also appreciate your acknowledgement of the pragmatic >>approach. The note about public scrutiny is my favorite part. Your >>steps sound like a pretty good plan. > > Robin and Bob, what's your opinion? I have already expressed my intent (to Cowan) to add the "approved errata" to the existing master, and to save it in .docx XML format, thus preserving the indexing info, while reducing our dependency on an outdated Microsoft product. That can be used to generate a new html and/or PDF, which can be compared with the one that these people have generated. As to which version gets used as a master for any future work, the question is moot until we have alternatives, and Cowan has expressed some legitimate question about the longevity of the format that the current master is in. I still think that the byfy should pro-forma vote on incorporating the "approved errata" before *any* version incorporating them goes on the LLG website. >>On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: >> >>>On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 06:21:57PM -0400, John Cowan wrote: >>> >>>>The community edition uses a corrected version of the posted >>>>chapter-by-chapter HTML format as the editable master. It can be >>>>edited with any HTML editor or by hand with equal ease, and its format >>>>is standardized by W3C and ISO. >>> >>>That is a good point. >>> >>>I'm still angry because they (for it now seems that it is a group effort, and that remod may not even be the one spearheading it) started merging the errata without asking for permission, distributed the updated CLL without asking for permission, and persist in not asking for permission, even after being told both by Robin and myself that that is what they need to do. I am "angry" about it as well, because people have asked a few times in the last couple of months about the matter, and we have officially answered that we are NOT making the master public, only to have someone do this. If there was back-channel discussions with people wanting to do this, it should have been brought to the Board, or maybe even to the annual meeting, since it was probably still in progress. >>>But I agree with Matt that we need to think about what's good for the language and what's good for the reputation of the LLG. So I propose that we take the following actions: >>> >>>1) Have the copyright of the CE assigned to us. I don't know if the changes that have been made are actually copyrightable, but if they are, and it doesn't belong to us, we do not have the legal right to do any of the following: Cowan commented on this, and I would go with him, except ... we are a worldwide organization, and I don't know international copyright law, even to the extent I know US copyright law. >>>2) Grant permission to distribute the CED under the same licence as any other CLL. Cowan seems to opine that no such permission is needed, if it is properly marked. The question really is which version is the official one and/or which version(s) will be available on the LLG website. >>>3) Save the CE for use as the basis of the future 2nd ed. of CLL. I reserve judgment on this per above comments. I don't think that a decision needs to be made now. If we were to decide to do overseas POD publication before 2nd edition, obviously we would need to decide which version. That is one reason I want to get the current master into consideration, since this new version is not suitable for printing, without an index. >>>(I share Bob's concern that substantive changes in the language may have been inserted, either accidentally or maliciously. But I'm convinced that public scrutiny will reveal any such changes, and in any case, the book carries a note that it is not the real thing.) Public scrutiny is fine, but attaching any sort of official approval to it before there is *official* scrutiny is dangerous. Some 10-15 years ago, I was chewed out publicly for making similar kinds of corrections in the baselined gismu list. I was convinced by others that even typo changes should all be formally approved and that my personal judgment as author wasn't good enough in a formal baseline situation. lojbab