This is also a major work that a lot of people in the global Jewish
community would feel is an important part of the public domain, and
enhancing of public education on these topics.
Thanks,
Pharos
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Lodewijk <lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org>
wrote:
Hi Jonathan,
We all realize how sensitive a subject this is. Not only because of the
reasons you give, but also for the obvious reason that this is a highly
influential and well known work we're talking about.
If we were publishers trying to make a buck out of selling the work, I
would agree with you, and move on. However, that is not what we want to do
as a movement. We don't try to take advantage, but we want to build upon
works. We want to collaborate and stand on the shoulders of giants. Giants
like this little girl.
Before the WMF deleted the pages from Wikisource, we were working on a
context enriched version, and considering working on a free translation
into English, which could then be used to spread the lessons this book can
teach us to other languages beyond those in which it already is available.
That would improve people's understanding, that would increase its reach.
Please note that the Anne Frank Fund is not the only charity that works on
this legacy. Other relevant organisations (I don't know if I can go into
details publicly) were more supportive.
Best regards,
Lodewijk
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 6:35 PM, WereSpielChequers <
werespielchequers(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I may have an unpopular view here, but when an
author has been murdered,
especially one so young, I find it distasteful to try to make that a test
case re copyright. If Anne Frank hadn't been murdered she might well
still
be alive today, and presumably her work would
still be in copyright.
By all means we should be encouraging people to freely license things
openly, and arguing for open licensing against those who claim copyright
on
faithful copies of out of copyright work, and for
freedom of panorama in
countries less open about such things than Armenia or the UK.
I'm sort of OK about as Michael Maggs put it using it to "increase
awareness of the excessive length (95 years) of some US copyright terms."
Though I'd hope there are other examples where we don't look like taking
advantage of the murder of a child. I'm also OK with using this as an
example of us taking copyright seriously.
But though it is an important work, is it really one we should be trying
to force into the open against the wishes of a charity set up by her
relatives?
Regards
Jonathan/WereSpielChequers
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>