On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 6:51 PM, Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com> wrote: Milos, Could we not import these works onto Wikisource in original format, where they would be preserved without permitting altering from the original? Wikisource community is a 'free-culture' equivalent of ND - altering the original is considered to be vandalism. Then build a bot to create wiktionary pages where they dont exist, and link those wiktionary entries to the relevant Wikisource page. That was the idea we had behind this project https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Dictionary_of_the_Sunda_language https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Index:A_dictionary_of_the_Sunda_language_of_… with wikt links added to pages yet to be created https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:A_dictionary_of_the_Sunda_language_of_J… But I've never gotten around to writing the ws -> wikt bot , and was sort of waiting for wiktionary-wikidata integration to simplify the bot's overall structure. -- John Vandenberg

Unless you are an artist that wants everyone to experience your art exactly the way you produced it, ND is likely suboptimal if not harmful. Even a normative work will have thousands of edits per page, dozens of typos or format corrections, and even future updates to add footnotes, or actual changes ('this grammar rule last changed in 2002 under guideline 2002-14b, see diff'). A reuser will take a page image of an interesting title page or table to illustrate a discussion of comparative Serbian grammars in a video montage. Someone will translate the narrative parts of the Normative Grammar into French. Someone will add structured data and related tags to each page. Wouldn't you consider these all derivs? On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 3:34 AM, Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 11:23 PM, Amir E. Aharoni <amir.aharoni(a)mail.huji.ac.il> wrote: Could you elaborate on this? If you open the links in my email, you will see that the text can be verified against the edition on file, and Wikisource projects typically have *revision* patrolling enabled to help catch incorrect changes. -- John Vandenberg

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 11:46 PM, Amir E. Aharoni <amir.aharoni(a)mail.huji.ac.il> wrote: Yes. If the original is uploaded, we can keep the Wikisource copy in line fairly easily. If necessary, we could even fully protect the pages. The proection policy on en.ws allows for that. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Protection_policy How could checksums help? -- John Vandenberg

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Amir E. Aharoni < amir.aharoni(a)mail.huji.ac.il&gt; wrote: If I'm not wrong, cc-whatever specifies that the author of the primitive work has no responsability on derivative works, and I think that a clause that limits the name of derivative works is not in contrast with the license. We are used to Wikimedia projects, where the last saved version is "the" version, but actually any version is a derivative work of the previous versions. Teachers most often can invoke fair use; however, for our sake, we would like to be able to go beyond that. Even without using ND clauses, we could think of some "superprotection" way of ensuring that the reference work is not modified (and whatever derivative work is something else). Cruccone

After thinking about John's response, I've realized that those works should go into public domain (actually, under CC-BY, as Serbian laws don't recognize PD outside strictly defined "works not created by author" in the sense of laws and other similar works; it's been explicitly stated that "moral responsibility can't be abandoned", which creates CC-BY conditions). It's about works of public interest and they should be freely accessible. However, Sj reminded me about the real meaning of ND and this opens two connected issues. The right address for the first one is Creative Commons, while the second one is technical and should be solved inside of Wikidata or Wikisource or even Wikiquote. Let's forget for a moment any normative work. Take as an example any public domain work, like King James' translation of Bible is. There is a need to quote portions of Bible for any relevant reason. It's public domain and we can quote the whole Bible if we want. But we want to be sure that the quote is genuine and not dependent on random vandalism. So, we need a software solution to import particular quote into a Wikipedia article, while not giving a chance anyone to edit it. Back to the licensing. Every normative work needs to be quoted in the verbatim form. But it's not ND, as you should be able to quote any statement of the work. It's not a proprietary license, as you should be able to quote the whole work if you have such need. (A sum of Wikipedia articles could easily quote the whole Normative Grammar.) Thus, we need a kind of "verbatim license", which should say that you could quote any statement and that there is no limit in the number of quotes or percentage of particular work. BTW, I didn't ask this question in relation to the copyright holder rights. This is related to the reliability of particular copy of prescriptive or reference work. You can't say "we guarantee that this particular quote is verbatim" if it could be edited by anyone. And while *our* works should be edited by anyone, we have to rely on verbatim works (thus references). The question is do we have capacity to keep such works on our projects. (There is no question if we want it, as we have Wikisource and Wikiquote.) One thing is a culture of particular Wikimedia project, the other is the need to have software and legal framework for that. On Feb 24, 2015 8:30 PM, "Gergő Tisza" &lt;gtisza(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: