I was referring to Wikisource when I answered the question.
In a way all source texts needs some editorial curatorship and can be
called derivative texts of the authentic original.
It is naive and not helpful to think that changing typographic texts
in computer texts is'nt making a derivate (even the changes are
minimal).
Each culture has it's own rules what is allowed.
If there is a phrase "he writes a book" German common practice is to
quote "He writes a book" while anglo-american users would quote "[H]e
writes a book".
If I have a & in a latin text - can I write et without making an editorial note?
These are not copyright questions because these minor changes are as I
guess allowed in all countries if the work is protected by copyright
but can be quoted for some reasons.
Some sample for derivative works:
If a work is licensed CC-BY-ND you cannot shorten it (beside what fair
use allows) - whole or nothing!
I am in doubt if you are allowed to makes notes to the text even you
mark them as your own work.
You are definitively not allowed to make a translation without the
consent of the rights holder.
Not to speak from a creative use (remix).
Klaus Graf
2011/6/17 Shiju Alex <shijualexonline(a)gmail.com>om>:
Thanks for explaining.
I was referring only to Wikisource when I asked this question. In a way all
source texts are ND. We are making sure even the errors in original source
texts are appearing in the Wikisource version. So assumed what prohibits the
ND licensed books in wikisource. I was not knowing that ND license prohibits
translations also.
Thanks
Shiju
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Klaus Graf <klausgraf(a)googlemail.com>
wrote:
We cannot and should not accept ND.
See:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy
Even for legal texts there is a need for free translations which are
not possible with a ND license.
Klaus Graf
http://archiv.twoday.net
2011/6/17 John Vandenberg <jayvdb(a)gmail.com>om>:
ND goes against our objectives.
http://freedomdefined.org/
Our objective is not only to redistribute works, but also to allow
them to be reused (modified).
The only example of ND that I think Wikisource could accept is works
which are required to be reproduced faithfully by law or similar. For
example, the legal code of most Commonwealth countries is protected by
law, and some of these nations have licensed the legal code under a
"ND" like license.
The legal code is not created in a competitive environment. There is
only one for each nation. If we dont accept their ND license, there
is no chance that an alternative could be written.
--
John Vandenberg
_______________________________________________
Wikisource-l mailing list
Wikisource-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
_______________________________________________
Wikisource-l mailing list
Wikisource-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
_______________________________________________
Wikisource-l mailing list
Wikisource-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l