On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Ray Saintonge wrote: I don't think the general case matters, if Paramount give us permission that's fine, if they don't then we don't make a klingon wikipedia. Fighting a legal case over whether languages are copyrightable is not in the interest of the Wikimedia Foundation IMHO. Imran -- http://bits.bris.ac.uk/imran

On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Ray Saintonge wrote: This is Paramount we're talking about, they have a long history of taking legal action against unauthorized books and websites related to startrek. So even if they don't have copyright, as long as they claim that they do we should not have a klingon wikipedia, unless we are prepared to fight them in court. Imran -- http://bits.bris.ac.uk/imran

On Jun 10, 2004, at 10:15 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote: Copyright doesn't need to be registered, for one thing. A couple of questions for the people who know more about copyright history than I do, which might help clear this up. Can computer languages be put under copyright? Is the issue that Klingon is a trademark of Paramount relevent? i.e., even if the language and syntax is not owned by Paramount, can we call an encyclopedia "Klingon" without their permission? One thing I do think is important to reject is the notion of asking Paramount for permission/doing it with the knowledge that they won't complain. A Klingon Wikipedia would not simply be an online encyclopedia in Klingon - it would be a free encyclopedia in Klingon. We risk doing a lot of harm to the free software/copyleft movement if we take a misstep here. If we're not 100% certain that Klingon is not under copyright, I think we're better served to not play with fire here. Note that this is not a comment on the value of a Klingon encyclopedia. It's a comment on the ambiguity of whether or not a Klingon encyclopedia can be a part of a copyleft/free encyclopedia project. And a reminder that, with the wolves at the door of copyleft in terms of things like SCO and Ken Brown's book on Linux, it's probably best to be cautious about things like this. -Snowspinn er

On 06/09/04 03:56, Ray Saintonge wrote: Furthermore, if someone did try to claim the use, down to individual words, of a language as Intellectual Property, I'd get behind a project to create a Wikipedia in the language *because* of such a dangerously ridiculous and overbroadened concept of ownership. - d.

On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Timwi wrote: Firstly they'd have to copy you. Copyright is unlike patent law,independant creation doesn't violate copyright. Secondly, we're not talking about one invented wors here we're talking about 100s of words. Language Institute, ***** 2.12 Can someone give me a list of all the Klingon words? This is an understandable question, considering the (increasingly) large number of canon sources for Klingon. But the problem is, the Klingon language belongs to Paramount; it's copyrighted. If someone started distributing lists of Klingon words (or descriptions of grammar, etc.), then Paramount might view this as competition for the legitimate sale of their own products, which would be A Bad Thing. ... What about all those other sources for canon beyond TKD ? The KLI keeps a list of words post- TKD . Isn't this in violation of Paramount's copyrights? Well, the KLI has a license from Paramount, as an Authorized User of Klingon. But don't ask them for a complete list. ***** However as I said before, if you or someone else can get Paramount to clarify the legal permission of the lanugage, then we'd be in a position to progress. Imran -- http://bits.bris.ac.uk/imran

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Timwi wrote: It is if you get them to use a DMCA style statement which requires they act in "good faith" in claiming copyright. Anyway, there's one way to know for sure and that is to ask them. Would someone in the US please write to them so we can find out what the actually say rather than just speculating. Imran -- http://bits.bris.ac.uk/imran

David Gerard wrote: ...all of which would be invariant. RMS/FSF don't believe documentation should be as free as software, which is why there's so much cruft in the GFDL.