--- Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/1/06, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
I have a problem with Wikimedia adopting this
proposal
as Wikisource certainly has a place for documents availble under licences forbidding modification.
I do
not have specific examples in mind, but we already have policy of protecting all works from
modification
once they have been proofread to a certain degree.
These are completely separate statements. Protecting a page from editing is entirely different from using legal powers to stop others from distributing a modified version of that page. Page protection is a policy matter, forbidding derivatives is a matter of law. I feel that documents which cannot legally be distributed in altered form have no place on Wikisource. But that is exactly the discussion we need to have, especially on the Board level.
Erik
Yes I realize they are seperate issues, I just mentioned that to show the culture of Wikisource currently supports not modifing documents since I could not name any legal examples. I am sure there are many documents availble under the terms of no modification that Wikisource would love to have. I do not know why you think such works would have no place simply beacuse they cannot be modified. I see no value whatsoever in being able to modify the works of Charles Dickens, the Paris Peace Accords, or the Constitution of Singapore. In all honesty I see think this is true for 90% of material on Wikisource. I do not know what works we would have to exclude by adopting such a policy, but I am certain that they are works which do have a place on Wikisource.
Birgitte SB
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com