Print

Print


At 05:54 PM 11/1/98 -0500, Paul Bartlett wrote:
>On Sun, 1 Nov 1998, Chris Burd wrote (single sentence):
>
>> Obviously the Glosa-pe need to clean up their dictionaries.
>
>    One thing that has never been clear to me, at least, is the
>attitude and/or response of Ron Clark and Wendy Ashby to Glosistic
>meta-activity outside their purview.  If some Glosa-pe try to "clean
>up their dictionaries," would Clark&Ashby try to pull a Schleyer and
>exert proprietary control?  (I don't know; they don't participate in
>internet fora.)
>
*   No, the Glosa authors have only moral power, not power of the economic
variety.  In this litigous age, it costs lots of money to feed greedy
lawyers, and Clark and Asby will not be doing that.
    In fact, I might suggest that there is somewhat of a time-warp between
Britain where the concept of intellectual authority still exists in places,
and the rest of the exploitative world, where the ownership of intellectual
property is paramount.  The Glosa authors live in one of these time-warps,
and know that they have the moral right to dictate policy on the progress
of their social invention.  The rest of us, living in a more competitive,
less gentlmanly, world have lawyers word our copyright statements
carefully, and are ever vigilant of attempts to steal our corporate property.
    Well, the Glosa authors are just not operating that way.
    They control the Glosa contacts list.
    They survive on sales of hardcopy dictionaries, so have requested that
the _Glosa 6000_ dictionary not be released into the Public Domain in
electronic format.  I comply by sending the version, I had scanned, by
pidgeon post and on request, only to Glosalist subscribers and marked "for
research purposes only."
    When, and I hope it is soon, a median/optimal Glosa dictionary is
derived by Glosalist members, it will bear the Glosa Education Orgainsation
copyright, but will be released onto the Internet as resulting from the
work of Glosalist subscribers.  Those cutting _Glosa 6000_ down, or beefing
_Glosa 1000_ up, will not benefit financially from the release of an
intermediate dictionary, and it could be shown that the authors in
Richmond, Surry will benefit, ultimately, from an increase in orders to
purchase harcopy dictionaries - following such a release.
    What might be lost, and it is something more valuable than money, is
the friendship of the Glosa authors.  So, I am attempting to tread a path
between the old world and the new; between not usurping the work of those
who developed the original Glosa lexicon, and academically deriving from
their work a product of increased utility - sufficient, relevant and
consistent.
    I will send some disks bearing the median dictionary to the authors,
and will edit the dictionary accordingly, if they wish to make changes;
but, apart from our additions which could be seen as making up for their
omissions, the list will be selected directly from theirs, with
inconsistencies ironed out.
    It will be up to the authors to decide if the releasing of such a
dictionary is the basis for breaking a twenty-year friendship on the grouds
of my acting against their best interests, or against the best interests of
Glosa.
    BTW, until recently, the  [log in to unmask]  call-sign has
been open to inward e-mail.  Recently, however, they have been off the air
with computer trouble, so, the subject of money crops up again!  Repair
costs might put them out of action for some time: if anyone has a suitable
Internet compliant computer that they don't need, I would send them the
cost of transporting it to Surry in the U.K.
 
Saluta,
 Robin