--- Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/1/06, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
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.
The Creative Commons CC-BY-ND license defines "derivative works" (which are forbidden) as follows:
"Derivative Work" means a work based upon the Work or upon the Work and other pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted, except that a work that constitutes a Collective Work will not be considered a Derivative Work for the purpose of this License. For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical composition or sound recording, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a moving image ("synching") will be considered a Derivative Work for the purpose of this License.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.5/legalcode
I'm sure you will agree that derivative works, as per this meaning, are useful and essential to Wikisource. Translations, dramatizations, fictionalizations, art reproductions, and so forth, are all made impossible under licenses which forbid derivatives.
Erik _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org
Derivative works are by no means essential for Wikisource. The fact that we cannot translate a work for the French Wikisource does not lessen the value to the English Wikisource. There is already a policy in place which allows the works of French writers to treated as public domain in the English Wikisource yet forbidden the French Wikisource per disscusion on this very list. I see this situation as much less problematic. We are not going to be dealing with fictional works under this license, but rather the sort of documents that can be misrepresented by modifications. These are works which if unavailable to Wikisource will be irreplaceable. This is not at all like Wikipedia. If WP has an image of a butterfly that is under a license you do not like, then you can go take your own picture and release under GFDL. If Wikisource cannot host a Constitution or treaty, we cannot simply make our own version released under the GFDL. You said before these works have no place at Wikisource, but I do not think you have a real understanding of what Wikisource is trying to be well enough to make such a judgment. If you simply want Wikisource to be a dumping ground for the material you cannot get enough votes to delete from Wikipedia but would otherwise would fit WP's goald then you would be right. However if you expect Wikisource to be it's own project, with self-determined goals, you must let us judge what has a place within those goals. The ability to modify material is for the most part not a concern at Wikisource; it is not a concern to anyone who comes to find things at Wikisource, and it not a concern of the editors adding material.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com