[lojban] Re: Loglan

[And Rosta <arosta@uclan.ac.uk>]

>>> Steven Belknap <sbelknap@UIC.EDU> 12/05/02 12:05pm >>>
#On Wednesday, December 4, 2002, at 07:18  PM, And Rosta wrote:
#> Robin:
#>> The
#>> *instant* I discovered that Loglan was copywritten, I dropped it in
#>> favour of lojban
#>
#> Yes, that is a good reason. (I am assuming you mean what I would call
#> "copyrighted" and not "copywritten".) I have never seen a TLI 
#> statement of its position on copyright, though.
#
#Why is that a good reason? It may have spooked the learly lojbanistani, 
#but an attorney friend with considerable expertise in intellectual 
#property rights tells me that such a claim would be laughed out of a 
#courtroom. Alas, there is nothing certain in law but the expense. As 
#And points out, there isn't any vocabulary copyright statement in the 
#TLI materials.

I gather from frenzied debate about the copyright of invented languages,
especially Tolkien's, that the question is VERY unclear and has not been
settled by any actual court cases (the Loglan one being a trademark
suit). The mainstream opinion seemed to be that copyright wouldn't
extend to *using* an invented language, but it might extend to compiling
grammars and dictionaries of it, though those activities might still fall
under fair use.

The ethical position I personally am most comfortable with is that the 
originator should have exclusive right to profit financially from any product
that uses the copyrighted material, but no rights beyond this. This means
that for me personally, the fact that Lojban has been explicitly placed in
the public domain is actually an important thing in its favour.

--And.