Agreed with Ray here, the watermarking and "licencing agreement" for stuff that's public domain is a bit of a turnoff. Otherwise, it would be great to cross-reference what Wikisource has and what this site has, find out what he has that we don't, and take steps to correct that ;-) Cheers, Craig On 3 December 2011 09:58, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

Further to this, a key resource is the Online Books Page, http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/serials.html This is really helpful for the older stuff. Unz has a tremendous amount of more modern material, and I would have concerns about the legitimacy of his having the material. For example "The Anglo-Soviet Journal" was published in England from 1940 until 1992, shortly after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Unz has a broken run of issues between 1940 and 1974. Who would have been in a position to license his use of the material? Looking at the title page for the Spring 1965 issue the ASJ allowed reproduction of its contents, but did its contributors necessarily agree to this or give up their copyrights? It all makes me wonder how much of his material is infringing. For ourselves, it would make sense to be careful. In the broader scheme of things the situation bears watching. Do the authors of the articles even give a damn? I suspect that few if any with standing will ever complain. Those few can easily be accommodated. It makes one wonder about the benefit to being purists about respecting copyrights. Ray On 12/02/11 9:12 PM, Craig Franklin wrote:

On 07/18/12 12:01 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote: Another thing to keep in mind is that "free" is also a verb. We generate more freedom by giving an opportunity for the owners of older rights to express themselves, or allow the rights to lapse by doing nothing. Contrast this with maintaining protections out of fear. Ray

On 07/23/12 11:49 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote: In English we already had to make the difference between "free as in beer" and "free as in speech". "Copyleft, as I understand it, in the SA part of the Creative Commons licences. It requires those who use work that is under a copyleft licence to license the results under the same licence. When the copyright status of a work is unclear, as with an orphan work, we have no right to attach any licences at all, anymore than on PD works. It is with these works of uncertain status that I am more concerned. Doing so outside of the WMF umbrella gives a lot more flexibility. It allows steps that will make those works free. One of my complaints about the Unz site is that it forbids reproduction of any of its contents, including material that is clearly in the public domain. Ray