[Foundation-l] RfC: A Free Content and Expression Definition

[Birgitte SB]

--- Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/1/06, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > I have a problem with Wikimedia adopting this
> proposal
> > as Wikisource certainly has a place for documents
> > availble under licences forbidding modification. 
> I do
> > not have specific examples in mind, but we already
> > have policy of protecting all works from
> modification
> > once they have been proofread to a certain degree.
> 
> These are completely separate statements. Protecting
> a page from
> editing is entirely different from using legal
> powers to stop others
> from distributing a modified version of that page.
> Page protection is
> a policy matter, forbidding derivatives is a matter
> of law. I feel
> that documents which cannot legally be distributed
> in altered form
> have no place on Wikisource. But that is exactly the
> discussion we
> need to have, especially on the Board level.
> 
> Erik

Yes I realize they are seperate issues, I just
mentioned that to show the culture of Wikisource
currently supports not modifing documents since I
could not name any legal examples.  I am sure there
are many documents availble under the terms of no
modification that Wikisource would love to have.  I do
not know why you think such works would have no place
simply beacuse they cannot be modified.  I see no
value whatsoever in being able to modify the works of
Charles Dickens, the Paris Peace Accords, or the
Constitution of Singapore.  In all honesty I see think
this is true for 90% of material on Wikisource.  I do
not know what works we would have to exclude by
adopting such a policy, but I am certain that they are
works which do have a place on Wikisource.

Birgitte SB

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com