Dan Rosenthal wrote:
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 2:09 PM, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
Fully agreed with Ec. Acknowledgjng the license is acknowledging the document in concersn are free: without that, it may be wrongly claimed to be copyrighted, and hindered further distribution. License issue is crucial in my understanding to ensure the knowledge we've accumulated free in the true meaning.
Not just "may be" wrongly claimed, it IS being wrongly claimed. And as I said earlier, not only does that hinder further distribution (because people will see copyright symbols and assume incorrectly that it actually is non-free content) but it also hinders further creation of new free works when people cannot be adequately assured that their licenses will be respected.
This happens more frequently than it should. Very few modern books don't have a copyright notice; this includes reprints of old books that are indisputably in the public domain. The new copyright only applies to new material like a new introduction. It may also apply to compilations and formatting, but very few publishers are in a hurry to clarify these limits.
Ec