>Sound to me like a big mistake. Wikisource is a source, not an editor ; 
>we have not to decide what is more valuable for the public. And soon or
>later there will be wars edit.

Why is it a "big mistake" to provide valuable, useful editions of classic works to
the public under a free license?

Almost all "sources" require good editing, and any good library requires quality
editions. If a good edition is not in the public domain, then just proofreading OCR
won't produce a quality edition for your "free library".

Beyond that, there is no need to declare that Wikisource is THIS and not THAT.
A more generous view of things will better serve both the project and the public.

And like I said, we've never had an edit war (in about 8 years). I tend to think that
is because the people who edit texts and the process of editing texts are both less
prone to edit wars than are Wikipedia articles. It is a different culture. Of course it
could still happen, but then maybe it would be better not to have Wikipedia either
since edit wars happen there?