Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 04:23:25 -0400 From: lojbab@grebyn.com (Logical Language Group) Message-Id: <9208130823.AA02915@daily.grebyn.com> Subject: Esperanto potential Lojbanist - please contact Content-Length: 23179 Lines: 420 Nick. I would like to turn this one over to you, as our most expert Esperantisto-Lojbanist. Don gave me enough of a translation to make me realize that Mauro may not speak English (he has not contacted me directly since this message being one good additional sign). If so, his interest may make him a good candidate for the first non-English-speaking Lojbanist, and a wild guess based on his name suggests that he may be Finnish (though perhaps Italian???), which gives him wrap-around capability through Veijo. Please see what you can find out, and inspire. (you also seem like a good person to talk to him about other conlangs per his interest, as well). Note that his address seems to be Fidonet, which is a low quality mail link. lojbab ------------Forwarded message >Date: 01 Aug 92 02:51:11 EDT >From: Don HARLOW <72627.2647@CompuServe.COM> >To: Mauro Tauzzi , > Bob LeChevalier , John Ross >Subject: Re: LOJBAN > >To: Mauro Tauzzi >INTERNET:Mauro.Tauzzi@f608.n333.z2.fidonet.org; >Bob LeChevalier >INTERNET:lojbab@grebyn.com; >John Ross >INTERNET:jross@bu-conx.bu.edu > >Dato: 920731 > >Por Mauro Tauzzi, Mauro.Tauzzi@f608.n333.z2.fidonet.org > >>C^u estas lojbanistoj en la reto ? >>Mi scivolas pri Lojban lingvo kaj g^enerale pri artefaritaj lingvoj >>krom Esperanto. >>Kiu povas helpi min ? > >Saluton, Mauro! Cxu mi antauxe ne vidis vian nomon inter ni? Nu, >cxiuokaze, bonvenon! > >Pri lojbanistoj, vi devos demandi al s-ro Bob LeChevalier, al kiu mi >sendas kopion de cxi tiu komunikajxo. Ankaux ekzistas grupo, "conlang", >kies anoj interesigxas pri planlingvoj; sed ili gxenerale interkomunikas >nur anglalingve. Cxu vi konas tiun lingvon? Mi sendas kopion de cxi >tiu komunikajxo al la administranto, s-ro John Ross, kaj eble li >kontaktos vin. > >Rilate vian demandon pri la anoncetoj-servo: lastatempe mi estas tre >okupita pri aliaj aferoj, sed nun -- kiam la someraj bruoj komencas >mallauxtigxi -- mi esperas post kelkaj tagoj aux unu semajno rekomenci >aperigi tiajn anoncetojn. > >Rilate vian mencion pri la simileco inter Esperanto kaj la itala: >antaux ses jaroj mi kaj mia amikino Mingcxi estis en vagono survoje de >Sxanhajo al Nankino, en Cxinio. Ni babiladis en Esperanto dum kvar >>horoj, kaj iomete antaux ni, juna euxropa geduopo konstante turnis al ni >la okulojn kaj sxajnigis sin iomete konfuzitaj, kvazaux ili _devus_ >kompreni nin, sed ne povis. Kiam ni elvagonigxis en Nankino, mi >rimarkis en la mano de la viro ekzempleron de la jxurnalo _L'Unita_. > >(Lernantino de Mingcxi, el Nanning en la Guangsxi-a Auxtonoma Regiono en >la sudo de Cxinio antaux unu-du jaroj iris al Italio kun komerca grupo. >Tie sxi konsternigxis, cxar cxiuj diris al sxi: "Nepre vi iam studis la >italan, cxu ne?" Tute ne, sxi nur studis Esperanton en la Universitato >en Nanning -- sed pere de Esperanto sxi versxajne povis komuniki, >almenaux iomete, en Italio!) >============================================= >Don HARLOW Redaktoro Esperanto U.S.A. >tel. (1 510) 222 0187 >CompuServe [72627,2647] >Internet 72627.2647@compuserve.com Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 04:38:09 -0400 From: lojbab@grebyn.com (Logical Language Group) Message-Id: <9208130838.AA03008@daily.grebyn.com> To: c.j.fine@bradford.ac.uk, nsn@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au LLG Inputs to TLI Regarding its Ideas for a Proposed Meeting on 6 November 1991 for Purposes of Initiating Negotiations Caveat: This paper is intended for negotiation purposes only. It is a draft document that has not been formally approved by the LLG Board of Directors. No statement herein is intended for the purpose of eliciting admissions, nor are any admissions made with regard to issues in the case pending between us. Notwithstanding this, all five Directors were consulted in the writing of this document, and three of those Directors have reviewed the specific text. Request: Specific input is sought from TLI regarding its position on the matter discussed in Section IV. as soon as possible and prior to the meeting. Preamble: In a year when the Cold War ends, and in a week when Israel and the Arabs sit down at a table to try to settle their differences, we should try to bear in mind how relatively small our differences are, and earnestly strive to make them smaller. I. Meeting Parameters [Section deleted in 7/92 Member distribution] II. Response regarding the Trademark Issue as a topic for negotiation It is LLG's basic premise that the disputes between TLI and LLG are political, personal, and occasionally semantic, and NOT legal in their basic nature. As such, any resulting agreement must rest on the principle of ultimately moving resolution of disputes outside of the legal system, to be made on the basis of cooperating to establish common grounds rather than relying on legal maneuvers and precedents which were not established with our differences in mind. LLG's position is that the trademark claim is basically legal in nature, and that regardless of its validity, it interferes with cooperating to establish common ground, constantly reminding that its ultimate basis and enforcement lie within the legal system. LLG believes that its legal position is valid, has been upheld in the courts, and is almost certain to continue to be upheld. Hence LLG considers cancellation of the trademark to be non- negotiable. We ARE willing to consider informal understandings and conventions which preserve all parties' true interests, but which do not rely on legally established restrictions. We further believe such understandings are possible. LLG does not intend to deny TLI's right to use 'Loglan' pragmatically in any way it wishes, nor intends to primarily advertise and publicize its efforts using the term, but must retain for it and for the community, the free right to discussion of the Loglan Project, the historical and evolutionary language form(s), and Lojban as an instance or version of the generic evolutionary Loglan language (family). Any member of the community must be free to use a version of the language for any purpose without approval and restriction; this is in the inherent nature of a human language. The purpose of our stand is not specifically to enable or promote commercial uses of the language. However, any restriction on such use is an unacceptable constraint on the language and its users. We believe that any benefits of constraints on commercial use are illusory. LLG notes that it is a non-profit organization, as is TLI, and that both are bound by the same rules dedicating their work to specifically chartered purposes, and to the public interest, not to commercial interests. III. Aspects of a resolution to be discussed Critical to the success of a meeting is agreement as to the eventual goals for resolution of the dispute. This section discusses five aspects of such a resolution. Section IV. discusses three possible options for resolution of the first aspect, priorities among which guide the direction to be sought for each of the other aspects. These aspects and options, listed briefly, are: Aspects: 1. Resulting language version(s) 2. Organizational reconciliation 3. Dr. Brown's special role 4. Amelioration of existing disputes 5. Resolution of open legal questions Options: A. A single language version supported by both organizations B. Two versions, non-competing C. Two versions, competing Detailed Description of Aspects: 1. What version(s) of Loglan (including Lojban) will emerge and/or survive resolution of the dispute? 2. Resolution of TLI, LLG, and others organizations' roles in the post-dispute period. 3. Providing for recognition of Dr. Brown's special role in the Loglan Project, and ensuring that is personal interests and goals, and potential contributions, are respected and valued. 4. Amelioration of disputes between, and general satisfaction of, principals, members, and other supporters of the project and both organizations. The present resentments and feuds must be transformed into cooperation, and we must determine how this is to be achieved and ensured into the future, respecting all individuals who are past and/or present participants. 5. Resolution of all open legal questions with the intent of removing them from the legal arena, including, but not limited to: a) trademark and other use of the term 'Loglan'; b) copyrights of software and materials, including both language definition materials, and other publications (specifically including standards for dictionary publication); c) trade secrets; d) definitions of public domain and public access, derivative works, and authorial and organizational rights; e) status and rights with regard to materials composed in and/or translated into any version of the language, and with regard to applications and research involving the language by third parties (either with assistance from, or independent of, either organization); f) closing the book on libels and slanders of the past, and ensuring a fresh start in the public eye; g) establishing a mechanism for mediation of any future dispute independent of the legal system. IV. Options for the Language The flavor of resolution to all aspects except III.1 depend on the option(s) to be consider under that aspect. Thus we must first decide which will be considered, and then tailor negotiated settlements to a final choice. An evolutionary process between options is plausible. LLG has very strong preferences on this aspect, and believes its entire negotiating stance at the meeting would depend on TLI's views and goals regarding this aspect. LLG will be prepared to discuss all three of the following, but would like to know in advance which of them TLI is willing to consider, and with what priority (as well as any related aspects of TLI's negotiating position). A. By far the best result of the negotiations would be a remerger of both efforts behind one language version with a common vocabulary. It is believed that, except for vocabulary, the differences between the two language versions are relatively easily resolvable. The remerger of a major schism in an artificial language project is unprecedented, and would reap enormous benefits in terms of publicity, relations to other artificial language communities, credibility in the academic and commercial communities, and setting an inspiring and solid precedent against any future schisms in the language, thus maximizing the potential for Loglan to survive and prosper into the indefinite future. LLG is committed to its supporters to preserve the public domain baselines of its version, and believes that those baselines should serve as the core/starting point of any common version. TLI's poli- cies and commitments to its supporters, on the other hand, are more flexible in terms of changing established design features. LLG would respect putting the matter of vocabulary change to a vote of TLI's members, as the people most affected by such a change, provided that if TLI's principals do not unambiguously support the change, LLG will have an equal chance to have its position communicated to TLI's members. LLG would be willing to similarly put any vote requiring a change to its baselined designs to its members. Note: In the new issue of Lognet, Dr. Brown says that he has never looked closely at Lojban's design, because repulsed by 'surface features. The parent meaning of this statement is that Lojban orthog- raphy (writing form conventions) may be significantly responsible for reluctance to consider this option. LLG points out and is prepared to demonstrate that underlying certain conventions that may be striking to the eye (but which we feel are justified), Lojban is essentially identical in appearance to the TLI version (other than the obvious word substitutions). It is believed that an alternate orthographic convention supporting TLI's surface appearance can be adopted for Lojban with no substantive change in the language, if this will aid consideration of this option. LLG believes that TLI publications in computer form can be converted into a new version using such an alternate orthography, almost entirely by straight vocabulary substitution. LLG would be prepared to substantially support such a conversion. B. If a remerger is not possible, or must be delayed for some reason, then at least two versions of the language will inherently continue to exist into the future. Such continued existence could either be on a competitive basis, or a non-competitive, cooperative basis wherein support for either version aids both versions. If two versions of the language must continue, LLG has a strong preference for such existence to be non-competitive. To have a non-competitive situation, LLG envisions that the two language versions be brought to sufficiently close accord to render conversion between TLI version text and a subset of LLG's version to be possible by simple word substitution, with minimal grammatical analysis. This would be relatively simple because, except for vocabulary changes and the orthography difference noted above, TLI's current language is very close to a subset of LLG's grammar and vocabulary. (The subset relationship would prevent trivial conversion of LLG version text to TLI's version, but could probably be achieved by more sophisticated algorithms.) Materials could then be produced by either organization that would support either (or both) versions, enabling language users to freely choose whichever of the forms they prefer. This option is to be taken if option A is attempted, and fails because TLI membership does not accept a vocabulary change, and elements of this option could be included in an evolutionary path to option A, which would preserve active involvement by TLI supporters in advance of their learning the new vocabulary. (Indeed, Dr. Brown and others with long commitment to the current TLI vocabulary might not significantly need to relearn a changed language with the aid of such compatible conversion algorithms.) The non-competitive stance may ameliorate some of the fence sitting referred to in option C, but it is noted that unless this option is evolutionary towards option A, many of the advantages of option A do not apply to option B. C. If the two language versions continue to exist independently and competitively, other aspects of our respective efforts should be tailored to minimize friction between the two organizations and com- munities of language supporters. Other than a lowered level of hostilities, this option offers little advantage over the current situation, but that is better than nothing. LLG believes that the niche for a logical language of the Loglan genre has a limited market, probably too limited to support two fully competitive versions. Furthermore, a competitive situation will further limit that market. Many, perhaps most, potential supporters would choose to sit back and wait for one version of the language to die out, a process that might take a very long time. Proponents of the 'losing version' then face loss of an awful lot of time, money, and emotional investment, possibly with ill-feelings that could not be remedied. The result is disadvantageous to both groups, as the his- tory of similar competitions in the history of artificial languages demonstrates. V. Elaboration of some LLG positions and policies This section elaborates on two portions of LLG's positions which may not be obvious, and in regards to the second item, are known to be misunderstood. These are a) the nature of proposed cooperation and b) LLG's current and intended policies regarding its and TLI's intellectual property rights. a) Option IV.C. presumes that each organization does its own research and development, promotion, and fund-raising, with little possibility for common enterprise. Duplication and wastage, when both groups have limited resources, is substantial as well as injurious to the success of our efforts. The other options permit some degree of shared enterprise, and more efficient utilization of resources, but do not necessarily constrain either organization's activities or continued existence. Specifically, LLG does not propose under any option to prohibit either group from independent actions if so chosen. However, we want specific guidelines enabling us to minimize duplication of effort and to as much as possible present a common face to the world. For example, LLG is prepared and capable of serving as either a distributor, publisher, or agent for TLI's materials under standard publishing industry practices, or indeed generous ones with regard to TLI's income from sales. Its mailing list of over 900 people interested in Loglan and in-place international distributional arrangements in several foreign countries would greatly enhance marketability of TLI products. In addition, LLG has established some considerable respect in the academic community, and is likely to soon be able to reverse the historical trend of difficulty in getting third party funding for Loglan research. Greater cooperation and commonalty of language enhances our likelihood of such funding, as well as the ability of LLG to use its reputation in support of TLI's efforts. b) Noting some comments in the latest Lognet, LLG wishes to correct some apparent misconceptions as to its policies. We do indeed believe that the difference between our policies and TLI's are resolv- able, but only if our policies and intentions are clearly understood. LLG notes that some policies perceived to be new, are in fact our historical policies and have been stated in our publications and order forms almost since our inception. 1) All Lojban vocabulary, definitions, grammar, etc., have been expressly placed in the public domain and may be used by any person for any purpose without our approval (although we urge in our publi- cations of such public domain materials, cooperation with our ongoing efforts to stabilize the language); 2) LLG publications, teaching materials, software, etc., are generally copyrighted using language similar to Shareware licenses and/or 'copyleft' as defined by the Free Software Foundation. This allows free distribution of copies (especially via electronic means) and especially for promotion of the language, but prohibits many forms of competitive commercial use of these materials as provided under copyright statute. Copyright protection also allows circulation of draft materials openly for comment (including especially proposals for changes in baselined public domain materials), without fear of misuse, or mislabelling. The existence of materials in the public domain does not prohibit the incorporation of such materials in a copyrighted standards document that includes a statement that the collected materials constitute an approved or standard version of the language. Thus, LLG will publish a dictionary/reference manual soon, consisting significantly of otherwise public domain materials. This does not prohibit others from assembling their own copyright or public domain compendia of the language definition materials in the public domain. Materials which incorporate most of LLG's copyrighted material, however, must be distributed under the non-commercial license or by other arrangement with LLG. 3) Some very limited products, such as bound books and software, are strictly copyrighted with no explicit or implicit license for even non-commercial copying. These are the materials which we sell at a profit over costs, and rely on to fund other activities. Such copyrighted materials, as is standard, permitted relatively unrestricted personal use. 4) Derivative works in our policy are those which make substantial verbatim use of LLG publications, and their forms of expression, as opposed to those which are new creations about or using the language. Materials created using information from LLG materials, but without copying the form of expression is not considered derivative. Thus, in keeping with the standards of the dictionary publication industry, someone besides LLG could publish its own dictionary, using considerable information from our published and copyrighted dictionary and other publications, as long as they clearly do significant creative work on their own in forming their product. 5) LLG relies solely on its established reputation and implied authority as principal developer of its language version, as a means for maintaining unity of the language design. Our only use of copy- right related to language standardization is in making it clear in our publications which things we feel are proposals and which are considered to be a standard form of the language. We believe that, especially in a more harmonious/noncompetitive environment, this is sufficient, and that various legal, organizational, and regulatory means are not need to maintain language unity and identity. (Note that LLG's baseline policy is not really that different from TLI's policy of requiring changes to go through a formal Academy procedure, except that we strictly limit the things under such control, and upon putting things under such control, the process for change is much more difficult than gaining approval from a small body. Instead, we are committed to turn over the decision making process to the people actually speaking the language, as opposed to outside authority, with the intent that prescriptive guidelines like baselines will fade away when the body of speakers provides a more natural-lan- guage-like resistance to change imposed from outside.) 6) LLG and its principals respect, and always have respected TLI's rights in its publications and software, in accordance with the above. Our primary dispute has been over language definition materials that we feel were placed by TLI in the public domain, and which should be so. Certain materials created prior to the 1976 Copyright law, and not marked with a copyright notice are believed inherently in the public domain, but regardless of this, LLG and its principals have never had any intent to use any TLI materials other than as authorized under personal use, or under the non-commercial Shareware policy that even TLI seems to actually practice (we note that TLI has permitted, for example, the posting of Chapter 1 of Loglan 1, on the Planned Languages Server by Steve Rice, whereupon it can be freely copied by anyone non-commercially. LLG has never presumed to be that free with TLI's materials.)