I was asked to introduce this subject, probably because I have been employed by an 'official' organisation [1] that has some guidance to offer, money to spend and term collections to disseminate. Not being an expert on the subject gives me the freedom to approach it with, I hope, common sense. I will be very short, thus allowing the experts in the audience ample time to stand up to prove that I am mistaken. After all, this is an introduction to a discussion that should lead to conclusions.

The organisers of the Summit have linked the subject with the issues of intellectual and economic property rights. In line with the common sense approach, all conventions, regulations and the cascade of legal studies devoted to rights issues are pushed aside. I believe that the terminology community is eager to have clear and simple rules that allow to focus on the real issues and to do business without the need to ask for a legal study each time a next step is being considered.

I do not perceive a fundamental difference between publicly sponsored (official), and privately sponsored terminology dissemination. I will discuss 'dissemination of terminology' as such, and we will see what special treatment is required for activities sponsored by governments.

It does not make sense to discuss a subject at this Summit if we do not arrive at conclusions that will be carried forward to practice. To formulate conclusions is a necessary intermediary step, but what thereafter? The terminology community lacks the institutional instruments to ensure that declarations have an impact on practice. The Summit should consider this as an issue in its own right.

Political and economic handbooks formulate two supposedly opposing points of view that direct many of our choices. They have a profound impact on the property rights issues. I paraphrase:

everybody is allowed to earn a living by exploiting anything that represents a value to others;

services that are essential for the well being of all should be accessible by everybody.

In his 'common sense' paper presented in Paris in March 2000 [2], John Graham, taking the first point of view, investigates the chances to earn a living by developing and copyrighting terms. He concludes (quote) “The question of copyright {on terms} can almost be excluded from any consideration of future developments in this sector” (end quote). Imposing rights that generate income is impractical, he argues.

I take the other point of view: the use of terms is necessary for the participation of people in society. Nobody shall be deprived of the possibility to use terms. In this context, terms are those that are made public. The words of languages and the rules to combine them cannot be copyrighted. Likewise, public terms shall not be copyrighted because:

terms, both form and content, are means to communicate. Their existence is the consequence of an explicit or silent agreement between many parties. No single individual or organisation can claim ownership of a term;

if the use of terms is made difficult or impossible, some people are denied participation in culture and knowledge society. This conflicts with democratic values.

Conclusion: terms are free to be used by everybody. Nobody has to scare for legal, financial or moral sanctions in using a term, once it is published in any form, on paper or electronically.

Some organisations discovered that terminology-related services are of benefit to people or organisations, and they make an effort to provide those services and they charge the customers. These services normally concern the provision of documented collections of terms, on paper and increasingly electronically. This is the typical activity of specialised publishers. There is nothing wrong with this. To the contrary, the ability to earn a living with the provision of term services to customers is an indication of the maturity of the field. Because the customer is asked to pay a price, the content and the overall quality of the service must fit the customers` requirements. If, for example, the provider himself invented terms or their definitions, deviating from the practice in the field covered, the customer may decide that the product does not conform to its specification and take appropriate action.

Conclusion: term services fulfil a need and their provision should be properly rewarded; they are indicative of the maturity of the field.

Governments and public sector organisations, including the EU and UN institutions and their agencies, are creators and users of terms. Just like private organisations. They need to provide term services for their employees and the organisations they interact with. If required, they buy services. Where do they differ from the private sector? We investigate three situations. A government may:

1. subsidise the creation of terms, including the translation in one or several languages;

2. offer its collections established for internal use, to third parties;

3. subsidise the development of term services by third parties.

(Case 1) Governments have an obligation to ensure the best possible conditions for communication among their citizens and the world community. It is accepted that the maintenance of languages is their responsibility. Likewise, governments should promote that the terms necessary to express and to communicate knowledge are defined, and defined well. To this end, they will seek to associate with the experts representative for the various knowledge domains.

Case (2) is less obvious. A government providing term services is a player on the market and should therefore charge its customers. Surely, term banks owned by a government are owned by its citizens and might be available to them at no cost. This is a true dilemma, but in the interest of transparency and in view of many other services charged by governments to citizens and organisations, a fair price should be charged for the provision of term services by governments.

(Case 3) Governments should be extremely cautious if they consider subsidising the provision of term services by third parties. The concept of pre-competitive R&D used as a selection criterion by the research programmers of the EU, may provide guidance. The EU promotes the competitiveness of its industry, morally and financially. But there is a limit: its interventions should not distort the market in favour of some players, at the disadvantage of others. This is a free-floating criterion like a balloon in air. The environment defines its height. A subsidy should allow providers to overcome some basic problems that distorted the market already, resulting in gaps in the coverage of sectors or languages.

This introduction formulates principles rather than practice. The terminology field is very uneven. An overall organization is absent. Or to phrase it positively: diversity is the rule. Every sector has developed its own practices in dealing with problems. Formulating some general principles seems ambitious enough, linking them to practice is a bridge too far at the moment.

[1] The European Commission, Luxembourg and Brussels

[2] John D. Graham: Copyright of terms in terminology: reflections on the practical aspects; in the Proceedings of the Conference for a terminology infrastructure in Europe, 13-15 March 2000