[WikiEN-l] Copyright question

[John Lee]

On 4/3/07, Ken Arromdee <arromdee at rahul.net> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, John Lee wrote:
> > What I'm saying is, there's no reason we can't use primary sources if
> there
> > are already secondary sources. It's silly not to use what's available.
> But
> > if there are no secondary sources, how can we justify bringing up our
> own
> > novel interpretation of the primary sources, and becoming a secondary
> > source?
>
> In this case, it's the word "interpretation" which you're stretching out
> of
> all reasonableness.
>
> Procedures like making simple logical deductions, arranging in
> alphabetical
> order, or collecting lists of items are not interpretations.


I chose the word "interpretation" for a reason. Sorry if I didn't make this
clear earlier, but I'm not debating the Top Gear case at all - truth be
told, I forgot that that was the original topic in the first place. I'm
speaking in general terms about policy, because it seems to me that Phil is
advocating a view of policy that permits primary sources even where
secondary sources don't exist.

Johnleemk