6

Given the fact that inventor of the Loglan language started to claim his copyright on the language's components, and Lojban is basically a successor to Loglan, on what license Lojban is published? Can it be freely used without any limitations?

6

Logical Language Group, Inc. retains the copyright, but grants permission to copy, redistribute, and create derivative works from the official book, under conditions such as attribution and a requirement to include a permission notice identical to the one below.

Copyright © 1997 by The Logical Language Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies of this book, either in electronic or in printed form, provided the copyright notice and this permission notice are preserved on all copies.

Permission is granted to copy and distribute modified versions of this book, provided that the modifications are clearly marked as such, and provided that the entire resulting derived work is distributed under the terms of a permission notice identical to this one.

Permission is granted to copy and distribute translations of this book into another language, under the above conditions for modified versions, except that this permission notice may be stated in a translation that has been approved by the Logical Language Group, rather than in English.

The contents of Chapter 21 are in the public domain.

From the Boring Legalities section of the Lojban Reference Grammar

The Formal Grammar (chapter 21) is in the public domain, as the above license says.

|improve this answer|||||
  • 1
    Do they address the issue of being derived from Loglan? – curiousdannii Feb 9 '18 at 2:10
  • @curiousdannii Apart from the name "loglan" which they say is generic, I don't see any reference to the legal status of the relation between Loglan and Lojban – b a Feb 9 '18 at 8:50
  • 1
    Note that copyright is claimed strictly on the book, and other concrete creative materials. The language itself is not subject to copyright--or at least, has not yet been shown to be subject to copyright in US courts, and is generally assumed not to constitute a fixed creative work that could be copyrighted. – Logan R. Kearsley Feb 13 '18 at 19:10

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.