On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Thomas Dalton
<thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
(Did you intend to send that to the public list?
Either way, it's here
now, so replying on-list.)
The law is fine, it's just being misapplied. Writing an encyclopaedia
doesn't increase knowledge, it's a tertiary source, all the knowledge
is already in existence. It disseminates knowledge, something I
consider to be pretty synonymous with "education". I think at this
point we need a lawyer. I'll look up that case
For reference, the case is online here:
http://www.btinternet.com/~akme/shaw.html though with terrible
markup. I'll look for LexisNexis sources and similar, but those are
typically not public, so I thought I'd share that one with the list.
(probably a better URL, but I don't know how to use LexisNexis!)
The case is about an attempt to form a charity to research inventing a
new alphabet for writing English which would have 40 characters and be
easier to use. The judge concluded that increasing knowledge is not
the same as education, which is entirely correct. The case is about
original research, it has nothing to do with encyclopaedias and does
not apply to them.