Re: death of Dr. James Cooke Brown, inventor of Loglan
| From: | Terrence Donnelly <pag000@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Thursday, February 17, 2000, 15:37 |
|---|
It's sort of too bad that the copyright issue was never fully
resolved. Klingon has the same problem vis a vis Paramount
Pictures, which claims to own every aspect of the language,
including, presumably, all texts produced in it. The Klingon
Language Institute is a "authorized user", so things produced
under their auspices are OK, but no one has ever resolved the
status of other works. Since I doubt anyone has the deep
pockets to challenge Paramount in court, I doubt the issue
will ever be resolved.
-- Terry
http://www.geocities.com/teresh_2000
http://www.geocities.com/weseb_2000
At 04:49 PM 02/16/2000 -0500, you wrote:
>Matt Pearson wrote:
>
>> For the uninitiated and midly curious: What, in a nutshell, are the
>> differences of opinion between the Loglanists and the Lojbanists?
>
>Probably fewer and fewer.
>
>The original difference was about the public or proprietary
>status of Loglan: the proto-Lojbanists wanted a language whose
>word lists, production rules, and so on were in the public domain.
>At that time, the official Loglan position was that everything
>was copyright, even the individual words, and that nothing could
>be published in (not about, *in*) the language without official
>permission.
>
>To evade the arguments, the words were redesigned from scratch
>in 1998, and the production rules rebuilt. Lojban is the
>descendant of that effort. Since then, the groups have
>not interacted very much, so further drift has occurred, but
>relatively little. For the most part, the languages remain
>mutual relexes of each other, though some words have changed their
>lexical semantics. A bit of behind-the-scenes consultation has
>led to some joint solutions to common language-design problems.
>
>Litigation settled that the word "Loglan" is not a valid U.S.
>trademark, and may be applied to Lojban or anything else.
>Lojbanists claim to be part of the Loglan Project and use
>the term "Loglan" generically, whereas Loglanists typically
>exclude Lojban from the term "Loglan". Many persons support
>both efforts.
>
>Since then the copyright issue has receded, as the official
>Loglanists have adopted a relaxed attitude. We now refer to
>each other's web sites and so on.
>
>Also, Lojban has a better reference grammar. :-)
>
>--
>
>Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis vom dies! || John Cowan
<jcowan@...>