What copyleft/ public domain license holds Esperanto language?
من qwertz, 7 أكتوبر، 2011
المشاركات: 19
لغة: English
qwertz (عرض الملف الشخصي) 7 أكتوبر، 2011 3:30:44 م
it did encounter to me again, that some folks reclaim themselves to be official executor of LLZ's Esperanto language. But how I read LLZ hands over his creative invention "Esperanto language" to public use (Today called Copyleft). He did not legitimate solely one organisation to be authorized to speak and argue in the name of him. So, in my opinion Esperanto language holds an copyleft public domain license. The big question: Which ones of the Creative Commons or GPL license meets mosts excactly that what LLZ did enact?
Creative Commons
If I would see Esperanto language like something similar like an programming language i.e. Python. GPL or some BSD license could apply to Esperanto language, too.
GNU General Public License | BSD licenses
ĝp,
darkweasel (عرض الملف الشخصي) 7 أكتوبر، 2011 3:58:10 م
qwertz (عرض الملف الشخصي) 7 أكتوبر، 2011 4:03:24 م
darkweasel:a language has no kind of copyright at all.I could be wrong. But I believe to remember that Arika Okrent mentioned that i.e. Klingon has an Copyright. So, to publish an document with Klingon language could be object of Copyright discussion.
darkweasel (عرض الملف الشخصي) 7 أكتوبر، 2011 4:46:27 م
qwertz:According to the copyright law of the country I live in, definitely not because a language in itself cannot be a "work" according to its definition.darkweasel:a language has no kind of copyright at all.I could be wrong. But I believe to remember that Arika Okrent mentioned that i.e. Klingon has an Copyright. So, to publish an document with Klingon language could be object of Copyright discussion.
Unofficial translation of that definition: "Works in the sense of this law are proprietary intellectual creations in the fields of literature, sound arts, visual arts and movie arts."
Which of these four fields does a language fit in? According to my interpretation, none. I guess the definition is similar in other (European) countries.
Anyway, for Esperanto all this is irrelevant anyway. First off, Zamenhof has been dead for more than 70 years. Secondly, in the Unua Libro he declared:
An international language, like every national one, is the property of society, and the author renounces all personal rights in it forever.
Leke (عرض الملف الشخصي) 7 أكتوبر، 2011 6:32:58 م
darkweasel:a language has no kind of copyright at all.Until the law is changed :|
I could imagine this to be so for constructed languages since they are products of creativity -- just like music, art etc...
As long as there are no corporations behind languages -- bribing and threatening our politicians, we'll be safe enough
pikolas (عرض الملف الشخصي) 7 أكتوبر، 2011 7:28:40 م
Leke:Until the law is changed :|Laws may change, but they cannot be applied retroactively. Generally, works in the public domain are irrevocable.
trojo (عرض الملف الشخصي) 7 أكتوبر، 2011 10:00:35 م
qwertz:Paramount's copyright claim over the Klingon language itself has not been tested in court. I suppose they could argue that works written in Klingon are "derivative works" of their copyrighted Klingon dictionary, but it isn't 100% certain that that argument would be upheld by the court. However, probably just the threat of a lawsuit is enough to deter anyone from publishing a book in Klingon without Paramount's permission.darkweasel:a language has no kind of copyright at all.I could be wrong. But I believe to remember that Arika Okrent mentioned that i.e. Klingon has an Copyright. So, to publish an document with Klingon language could be object of Copyright discussion.
On the other hand, there were copyright disputes over ownership of Loglan, and I believe that Loglan's creator was able to retain the rights to it, forcing his detractors to splinter off and create Lojban.
In any case, even if it were possible to copyright a language, Esperanto cannot be copyrighted (at least in the U.S.). Zamenhof explicitly put Esperanto itself, along with the Unua Libro, etc, into the public domain. And even if he hadn't, since it was a pre-1924 work, any copyright would have long since expired in the U.S., and it can't be put under a public license either since no one today owns the rights to do so.
1Guy1 (عرض الملف الشخصي) 8 أكتوبر، 2011 12:21:08 م
darkweasel:a language has no kind of copyright at all.There were copyright issues with Loglan that led to the development of Lojban
The Loglan-Lojban Dispute
I guess this is a risk with some synthetic languages (but not Esperanto).
ceigered (عرض الملف الشخصي) 8 أكتوبر، 2011 4:34:29 م
I wonder what the guy was after... A language-use tax or something?
barat (عرض الملف الشخصي) 12 أكتوبر، 2011 6:52:45 ص
darkweasel:a language has no kind of copyright at all.What about NAVI langage from Avatar? It has CopyRight.