Re: [CODE4LIB] Zotero under attack
Peter Murray wrote: The version of EndNote I have (circa 2005) came with a couple dozen styles, and as of now Thomson Scientific has 3,500 up on their EndNote Styles website. I had read the original claim as we export citations accepted at 3500 journals (most of which they might have been able to accomplish with the couple dozen styles in question given the popularity of MLA, APA etc.). How much of the 3500 claim is copy/paste as distinct from fresh intellectual effort? Were they not claiming: a) we invented an internal data model that allows us to produce all these (different?) outputs b) you reverse-engineered our data model c) people can now export their citations from our data model in our proprietary software to your free software d) this is hurting our sales (or the tea leaves suggest it will) e) Stop. Send money ... lots. Walter Lewis
Re: [CODE4LIB] Zotero under attack
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sep 28, 2008, at 8:58 PM, Reese, Terry wrote: 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. (As the original author of the quoted section above, please replace "can -- and have -- be created" with "can -- and have -- been created".) I'm not sure that's what they are saying. Endnote does come with ens files that they create (I believe, that was the case the last time I looked at the software), managed and provided as part of their application. They certainly can claim rights to those (this isn't really a gray area) -- and unless the Zotero software is able to determine user generated files from files distributed as part of the Endnote application, then it could be problematic. Agreed -- if Thomson Scientific created the ENS style file in question, then it is their intellectual property and there are probably grounds for the lawsuit. The version of EndNote I have (circa 2005) came with a couple dozen styles, and as of now Thomson Scientific has 3,500 up on their EndNote Styles website. Even these may not be created by Thomson Scientific itself -- the notes in the Zotero enhancement ticket mention that some of the styles might be user-contributed. A quick perusal of the Zotero code that decodes the ENS file (https://www.zotero.org/trac/browser/extension/trunk/chrome/content/zotero/xpcom/enstyle.js?rev=2908 #L112) would seem to show that there is nothing in the ENS file that points to who created the style. If there was some way to exclude EndNote style files created Thomson Scientific, then Zotero would probably be okay. But, then again, I'm not a lawyer... Peter - -- Peter Murrayhttp://www.pandc.org/peter/work/ Assistant Director, New Service Development tel:+1-614-728-3600;ext=338 OhioLINK: the Ohio Library and Information NetworkColumbus, Ohio The Disruptive Library Technology Jesterhttp://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! iD8DBQFI4DJg4+t4qSfPIHIRAmyqAJ98q5NlGexU1LxBMn83126ExoTABQCfcLEB Dkipu/L0A8pMFXkSbmXPIug= =Fr7M -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [CODE4LIB] Zotero under attack
>>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'm not sure that's what they are saying. Endnote does come with ens files that they create (I believe, that was the case the last time I looked at the software), managed and provided as part of their application. They certainly can claim rights to those (this isn't really a gray area) -- and unless the Zotero software is able to determine user generated files from files distributed as part of the Endnote application, then it could be problematic. --TR *** Terry Reese Cataloger for Networked Resources Digital Production Unit Head Oregon State University Libraries Corvallis, OR 97331 tel: 541-737-6384 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http: http://oregonstate.edu/~reeset *** From: Code for Libraries on behalf of Peter Murray Sent: Sun 9/28/2008 5:46 PM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Zotero under attack -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 Murrayhttp://www.pandc.org/peter/work/ Assistant Director, New Service Development tel:+1-614-728-3600;ext=338 OhioLINK: the Ohio Library and Information NetworkColumbus, Ohio The Disruptive Library Technology Jesterhttp://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-
Re: [CODE4LIB] Logo vote
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 +1 to the new combo/professional-1/professional-2 vote idea. - -1 to pirates and ninjas. I get enough of that kind of stuff at home already. ;-) Peter - -- Peter Murrayhttp://www.pandc.org/peter/work/ Assistant Director, New Service Development tel:+1-614-728-3600;ext=338 OhioLINK: the Ohio Library and Information NetworkColumbus, Ohio The Disruptive Library Technology Jesterhttp://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! iD8DBQFI4CWx4+t4qSfPIHIRAmgHAKCkbifFXaNeoyDXUKPPE2Y6uf7MgQCfXJLj lxPW6s7SC9HEU4SEk8tGAo8= =UPA7 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [CODE4LIB] Zotero under attack
-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 Murrayhttp://www.pandc.org/peter/work/ Assistant Director, New Service Development tel:+1-614-728-3600;ext=338 OhioLINK: the Ohio Library and Information NetworkColumbus, Ohio The Disruptive Library Technology Jesterhttp://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-
