6.0150 More on TLG Policies (2/102)

Elaine Brennan & Allen Renear (EDITORS@BROWNVM.BITNET)
Wed, 22 Jul 1992 15:43:40 EDT

Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 6, No. 0150. Wednesday, 22 Jul 1992.


(1) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 92 22:13:37 HST (49 lines)
From: David Stampe <stampe@uhunix.BITNET>
Subject: 6.0145 TLG Policies

(2) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 09:20:48 CDT (53 lines)
From: "Richard L. Goerwitz" <goer@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject: Re: 6.0145 TLG Policies

(1) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 92 22:13:37 HST
From: David Stampe <stampe@uhunix.BITNET>
Subject: 6.0145 TLG Policies

Theodore F. Brunner, after posting a vague warning about violations
of the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae license, refused to answer my
question about the duration of the copyright agreements he cited as
the reason for the license, or my question as to whether restrictive
licensing of TLG would continue indefinitely:

Ever so gently: (1) the TLG's business affairs are the TLG's
business, (2) subscription to the TLG CD ROM is not mandatory,
i.e., (3) anyone unhappy with the provisions of the TLG license
agreement may opt not to obtain a TLG CD ROM.

TLG is chartered as a not-for-profit organization. It has received
funding from public institutions. Recently it applied for a $500,000
challenge grant from NEH (TLG Newsletter, May 1992).

I'm a taxpayer. My questions still stand. I hope that Mr. Brunner's
answer will be more accurate than his complacent closing remarks:

Judging from the communications that reach us every day, 99.9% of
the thousands of TLG users scattered around the world appreciate
what we are doing, and what we have done. To that other .1%:
please understand that we are not trying to harm research and
scholarship.

99.9% of thousands of users would be 1998 or more communications. But
the TLG Newsletter cited above reports that a survey of users was sent
to 1100 individuals and institutions, and only 317 responses received.
The Newsletter says that questions were limited to user's specialties,
hardware and software access, and comments on software. There were no
questions in the survey about the TLG license. Previous editions of
the Newsletter have voiced concern about the number of users who have
not paid their license fees.

I am not a TLG user, but only a subscriber to the TLG Newsletter.
Like many others, I would probably be a user of TLG if it were not
under a restrictive license with no clear cutoff date. I would also
probably be a contributor of free text processing software for it.
Why the qualifier "probably"? Because I have further questions about
the conduct of the TLG project. In particular, the May 1992 TLG
Newsletter (p.2) states that "In September of 1991, the project's data
entry activities were shifted from the Philippines to mainland China."


David Stampe <stampe@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu>, <stampe@uhunix.bitnet>
Dept. of Linguistics, Univ. of Hawaii/Manoa, Honolulu HI 96822
(2) --------------------------------------------------------------68----
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 09:20:48 CDT
From: "Richard L. Goerwitz" <goer@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject: Re: 6.0145 TLG Policies (1/47)

A reader asks:

What kinds of legal contracts did TLG enter with copyright
holders, how many copyright holders are involved, what percentage
of texts are under contract, what is the duration of the
contracts, and how do they terminate?

To this question the following (patronizing) reply was offered:

Ever so gently: (1) the TLG's business affairs are the TLG's
business, (2) subscription to the TLG CD ROM is not mandatory,
i.e., (3) anyone unhappy with the provisions of the TLG license
agreement may opt not to obtain a TLG CD ROM.

The key word here is "business affairs."

May I remind the poster in question of something he is doubless aware,
namely that Bitnet is not a commercial network. If a commercial
product requires a license, and that license is coming up for renewal,
the question of renewal is between the vendor and the licensees. It's
not acceptable--in fact, it is downright rude--to use the net to save
yourself postage and filing costs. That is what your original posting
(which started the fluff) essentially did.

I might add that the question of when (if ever) TLG texts will be
freed to the public is a very relevant, scholarly query. I myself was
eagerly awaiting an answer. Wouldn't you know it that the minute the
subject turns from a question of business to one of scholarship, the
interests in question suddenly clam up? The traditional excuse for
such behavior is:

The TLG staff works very hard trying to serve the field. Judging
from the communications that reach us every day, 99.9% of the
thousands of TLG users scattered around the world appreciate what
we are doing, and what we have done. To that other .1%: please
understand that we are not trying to harm research and
scholarship. The opposite is the case.

Commendable, but massively irrelevant.

No one doubts that the TLG staff works hard. No one questions that
the TLG materials have been useful to scholars. What is being
objected to is the director's needlessly patronizing tone in response
to legitimate scholarly questions about the TLG materials, and to his
unwillingness to discuss aspects of TLG licensing arrangements except
insofar as these protect commercial interests.

-Richard L. Goerwitz goer%midway@uchicago.bitnet
goer@midway.uchicago.edu rutgers!oddjob!ellis!goer