 |
 |
>>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: [log in to unmask] http: http://oregonstate.edu/~reeset ******************************************* ________________________________ From: Code for Libraries on behalf of Peter Murray Sent: Sun 9/28/2008 5:46 PM To: [log in to unmask] 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 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-----