How's this for pedantry? "Knowledge is the heritage of a few" is gnomic present. But, in my opinion, if the author uses "always" in the sentence, then the tense is just the plain old present tense. Otherwise the "always" is superfluous. Now, if the author uses "Knowledge will always be the heritage of a few" the future tense was used deliberately, and clearly refers to a future time. That, both on its own and in combination with using the word "always" in the sentence, means that the gnomic present would be misrepresenting the author's meaning or intention,—even though it may be an improvement! Had the author wished to use the gnomic present, he/she could have done so in English. It's pretty pedantic, though, to criticize a translation that improves the sense when that happens (and it doesn't always happen)!!
What do you reckon?
Me grammatistam! "Pauculi [sunt] haeredes sapientiae" gnomici temporis praesentis est. Ut opinor, quidem, si "semper" scribatur, tunc praesens modò erit tempus, aliàs superfluum erit adverbium. Et tempore futuro et "semper" adverbio in utendo intrà sententiam, nonnè eis rationibus significatur in mente scriptoris sensum gnomici temporis deesse? Verus garammatista autem qui versionem incusat quae sensum pristini cumulat (nec semper autem cumulat).
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.