On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Anivar Aravind <anivar.aravind(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 9:55 PM, Vishnu <visdaviva(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Ravi,
On the copyright question AFAIK... it is the manner in which a certain
content is expressed (e.g. analyzed, compiled, paginated, represented,
etc..) the author could claim copyright, as there is a certain basic amount
of creative labour that went into it. So Govt. of Karnataka could
rightfully copyright these works, which it has now released under CC-BY-SA
3.0. A useful thing to read in this context would be this [1].
As Ravi pointed 11th Century Kannada literature is already public domain .
There is no point in re-licensing it as CC-BY-SA .
Digitization does not create fresh copyright . While thanking Govt for
their efforts to make it available , please dont create fresh copyright on
it . And while looking at details, There was no point of time in which
govt of Karanataka had copyright on this content .
This effort is almost in same lines of Open access initiative of rare
public domain books by Kerala Sahitya academy happened almost same time
last year (
http://www.keralasahityaakademi.org/online_library/index.html)
. They havnt claimed any undeserving copyright on these books . SO it is
better if people involved canm correct Govt of Karanataka at this point
itself showing kerala example to avoid further ambiguities surrounding
license .
~ regards
Anivar
I agree with Ravi and Anivar!
I am not an expert of licensing, but the thing that is already in public
domain, licensing the same under CC-BY-SA 3.0 is one way limiting the
public availability of the same content.
--
Rajesh Ranjan
www.rajeshranjan.in
@kajha <https://twitter.com/kajha>
Can the FOSS community save 197 endangered Indian languages?
<http://opensource.com/community/14/7/save-endangered-language-today>