Imran Ghory wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Ray Saintonge wrote:
is perfectly legal for third parties to produce klingon language documents and redistrbute them under any licence, then we can reconsider. However until that time we should not risk copyright violation and wasting the time of contributors (to the Klingon wikipedia).
he situation may not be as simple as that. It opens up the question of whether a language can be copyrighted at all. I suspect that it may be patentable in the same way that certain accounting and business processes have been patented. But that's a whole new kettle of fish.
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.
You're the one that chose to discuss this in terms of law. Establishing a legal right would still not address the wisdom of a Klingon 'pedia.
Your dependance on Paramount's position implies that they have a right to grant such a permission. If the material is not copyrightable, then what Paramount says does not matter. We can go ahead without their permission. That's precisely why the general case is so important; it helps to establish legal precedent. That's why I asked you to cite a legal case on the matter.
Fighting a legal case is not an issue, because no legal case has been started. Significant events must take place before it gets that far.
Ec