Few Malayalam wikimedians (http://ml.wikisource.org) have raised this issue recently.
All the books that we insert in Wikisource are the exact copy of the original source text. We are not making any derivations in the source text. So why we cannot allow ND licensed books in Wikisource.
Any thought on this?
Shiju Alex
ND goes against our objectives.
Our objective is not only to redistribute works, but also to allow them to be reused (modified).
The only example of ND that I think Wikisource could accept is works which are required to be reproduced faithfully by law or similar. For example, the legal code of most Commonwealth countries is protected by law, and some of these nations have licensed the legal code under a "ND" like license.
The legal code is not created in a competitive environment. There is only one for each nation. If we dont accept their ND license, there is no chance that an alternative could be written.
We cannot and should not accept ND.
See:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy
Even for legal texts there is a need for free translations which are not possible with a ND license.
Klaus Graf http://archiv.twoday.net
2011/6/17 John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com:
ND goes against our objectives.
Our objective is not only to redistribute works, but also to allow them to be reused (modified).
The only example of ND that I think Wikisource could accept is works which are required to be reproduced faithfully by law or similar. For example, the legal code of most Commonwealth countries is protected by law, and some of these nations have licensed the legal code under a "ND" like license.
The legal code is not created in a competitive environment. There is only one for each nation. If we dont accept their ND license, there is no chance that an alternative could be written.
-- John Vandenberg
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Thanks for explaining.
I was referring only to *Wikisource* when I asked this question. In a way all source texts are ND. We are making sure even the errors in original source texts are appearing in the Wikisource version. So assumed what prohibits the ND licensed books in wikisource. I was not knowing that ND license prohibits translations also.
Thanks Shiju
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Klaus Graf klausgraf@googlemail.comwrote:
We cannot and should not accept ND.
See:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy
Even for legal texts there is a need for free translations which are not possible with a ND license.
Klaus Graf http://archiv.twoday.net
2011/6/17 John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com:
ND goes against our objectives.
Our objective is not only to redistribute works, but also to allow them to be reused (modified).
The only example of ND that I think Wikisource could accept is works which are required to be reproduced faithfully by law or similar. For example, the legal code of most Commonwealth countries is protected by law, and some of these nations have licensed the legal code under a "ND" like license.
The legal code is not created in a competitive environment. There is only one for each nation. If we dont accept their ND license, there is no chance that an alternative could be written.
-- John Vandenberg
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 17:06, Shiju Alex shijualexonline@gmail.com wrote:
I was referring only to Wikisource when I asked this question. In a way all source texts are ND. We are making sure even the errors in original source texts are appearing in the Wikisource version. So assumed what prohibits the ND licensed books in wikisource. I was not knowing that ND license prohibits translations also.
The problem with the ND license isn't simply what it prevents on Wikisource. It is that it prevents Wikisource readers from making derivative versions. They should be able to grab a paragraph or, damn, a whole book and do what they like with it and, say, make a book of their favourite poems or parody bits or chop and change it to their hearts content.
Think of it like the non-commercial license and Wikipedia: English Wikipedia has a policy against 'paid editing', but that doesn't mean we should tolerate NC-licensed material being put into Wikipedia, because the license isn't about what the community on the wiki does with it, it's what ANYBODY can do with it.
Having ND texts on Wikisource means that we aren't allowing readers to use all the texts in a free manner.
I was referring to Wikisource when I answered the question.
In a way all source texts needs some editorial curatorship and can be called derivative texts of the authentic original.
It is naive and not helpful to think that changing typographic texts in computer texts is'nt making a derivate (even the changes are minimal).
Each culture has it's own rules what is allowed.
If there is a phrase "he writes a book" German common practice is to quote "He writes a book" while anglo-american users would quote "[H]e writes a book".
If I have a & in a latin text - can I write et without making an editorial note?
These are not copyright questions because these minor changes are as I guess allowed in all countries if the work is protected by copyright but can be quoted for some reasons.
Some sample for derivative works:
If a work is licensed CC-BY-ND you cannot shorten it (beside what fair use allows) - whole or nothing!
I am in doubt if you are allowed to makes notes to the text even you mark them as your own work.
You are definitively not allowed to make a translation without the consent of the rights holder.
Not to speak from a creative use (remix).
Klaus Graf
2011/6/17 Shiju Alex shijualexonline@gmail.com:
Thanks for explaining.
I was referring only to Wikisource when I asked this question. In a way all source texts are ND. We are making sure even the errors in original source texts are appearing in the Wikisource version. So assumed what prohibits the ND licensed books in wikisource. I was not knowing that ND license prohibits translations also.
Thanks Shiju
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Klaus Graf klausgraf@googlemail.com wrote:
We cannot and should not accept ND.
See:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy
Even for legal texts there is a need for free translations which are not possible with a ND license.
Klaus Graf http://archiv.twoday.net
2011/6/17 John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com:
ND goes against our objectives.
Our objective is not only to redistribute works, but also to allow them to be reused (modified).
The only example of ND that I think Wikisource could accept is works which are required to be reproduced faithfully by law or similar. For example, the legal code of most Commonwealth countries is protected by law, and some of these nations have licensed the legal code under a "ND" like license.
The legal code is not created in a competitive environment. There is only one for each nation. If we dont accept their ND license, there is no chance that an alternative could be written.
-- John Vandenberg
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org