-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I've posted some analysis and plenty of links to critical bits at
http://dltj.org/article/endnote-zotero-lawsuit/
Some other thoughts...
On Sep 26, 2008, at 4:01 PM, Reese, Terry wrote:
While reverse engineering the .ens
style files really isn't that big of a deal (this kind of reverse
engineering is generally legally permitted), utilizing the collected
knowledge-base from an End-note application is. I've run into this in
the past with other software that I've worked on -- there is a good
deal
of legal tiptoeing that often needs to be done when you are building
software that will essentially bird dog another (proprietary)
application's knowledge-base.
This seems like a real grey area. I can see Thomson Scientific
putting up a fuss when using ENS files generated by the creator of
EndNote. But ENS files can -- and have -- be created by just about
anyone (librarians, journal publishers, researchers) and published on
the open web. I don't see anything in the license agreement or argued
elsewhere that says Thomson Scientific has rights over these
"works" (the citation definition files) created and published by
others. That would seem akin to Microsoft claiming rights over
documents written in Word.
Peter
- --
Peter Murray http://www.pandc.org/peter/work/
Assistant Director, New Service Development tel:+1-614-728-3600;ext=338
OhioLINK: the Ohio Library and Information Network Columbus, Ohio
The Disruptive Library Technology Jester http://dltj.org/
Attrib-Noncomm-Share http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)
Comment: Ask me how you can start digitally signing your email!
iD8DBQFI4CVf4+t4qSfPIHIRAkYFAJ0Qq85j1IXKv9aAnexFo+kvbS/eEACcCuCY
kXoL085OZqvLFtbb+tb3LRI=
=2Z92
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
