Esperanto potential Lojbanist - please contact

[lojbab@grebyn.com (Logical Language Group)]

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 <Mauro.Tauzzi@f608.n333.z2.fidonet.org>,
>        Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@grebyn.com>, John Ross <jross@bu-conx.bu.edu>
>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.)