On Thu, Mar 14, 2002 at 11:05:40AM -0800, Michael (michka) Kaplan wrote:
> In any case, the fact that Tolkien's estate does not enforce the copyright
> because they want people to use the scripts is entirely besides the point --
Or they don't enforce the copyright because there is no copyright.
> the question of whether any language that is in some sense owned by a
> private party is a valid one to ask.
And yet you stand here and use the Queen's English. If this is a
problem, why did Shavian not create it? There are a number of other
scripts that were created in the 20th century; legally, they should be
in the same boat whether they were created to translate the Bible or to
write the story of the Elves.
> This would set an uncomfortable
> precedent for all parties and perhaps Unicode will need to get legal advice
> on what that means rather than have a bunch of non-lawyers and Tolkien
> enthusiasts tell everyone not to worry?
A lawyer did give a Quenya journal advice on the matter, that there was
no copyright on the language or script. If Unicode wants to consult its
own lawyer, it's welcome to, but there's no evidence that there are
problems here.
-- David Starner - starner@okstate.edu "It's not a habit; it's cool; I feel alive. If you don't have it you're on the other side." - K's Choice (probably refering to the Internet)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Thu Mar 14 2002 - 14:44:53 EST