Lexicon Urthus

Maru Dubshinki · 21 Jul 2005, 21:58 · from 2005-July.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: marudubshinki at gmail.com (Maru Dubshinki)
Date: Thu Jul 21 21:58:11 2005
Subject: (urth) Lexicon Urthus
Message-ID: <f5238c3050721212040e392f3 at mail.gmail.com>

What is the status of Lexicon Urthus? Is it still a going concern? 
'Cause Sirius says that they are completely and utterly out of LU,
they've been so since 2002, there are no plans for a corrected second
edition, or even a second printing; also, no copy on Abebooks, Amazon,
Ebay or what-have-you is available for less than 100 US$.  Also,
mantis appears to have moved on with other fiction and essays, making
LU look like a classic example of abandonware or an orphaned work
(just rather young).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphaned_works

I am curious because it strikes me that the LU would make a
surpassingly excellent basis for the much-discussed FAQ for this ML. 
I, however, have nil personal experience with Druissi, and I've read
only a few posts by him, since I first joined this list long after he
ceased to be active here.  I need to know: is this within the realm of
possibility?  Would mantis/Andre-Druissi allow a work, which will
probably never see print again, which was only ever aimed at a faction
of a faction of a fraction of the reading audience, and a small
fraction at that, to be licensed, improved and used as a basis for a
vocab section for the FAQ?  Would he find licensing under the GPL free
documentation license, or the Creative Commons
attrib-derive-sharealike-nocommercial license, or another CC license,
would he find it impossible?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License
http://creativecommons.org
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/

Is this but a pipe dream? Is it worth pursuing?

~Maru

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net