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

Mon May 1 16:49:23 UTC 2006

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

> On 5/1/06, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> The Creative Commons CC-BY-ND license defines
> "derivative works"
> (which are forbidden) as follows:
> 
> - - - - -
> "Derivative Work" means a work based upon the Work
> or upon the Work
> and other pre-existing works, such as a translation,
> musical
> arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion
> picture version,
> sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment,
> condensation, or any
> other form in which the Work may be recast,
> transformed, or adapted,
> except that a work that constitutes a Collective
> Work will not be
> considered a Derivative Work for the purpose of this
> License. For the
> avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical
> composition or sound
> recording, the synchronization of the Work in
> timed-relation with a
> moving image ("synching") will be considered a
> Derivative Work for the
> purpose of this License.
> 
>
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.5/legalcode
> 
> - - - - -
> 
> I'm sure you will agree that derivative works, as
> per this meaning,
> are useful and essential to Wikisource.
> Translations, dramatizations,
> fictionalizations, art reproductions, and so forth,
> are all made
> impossible under licenses which forbid derivatives.
> 
> Erik
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> 
Derivative works are by no means essential for
Wikisource.  The fact that we cannot translate a work
for the French Wikisource does not lessen the value to
the English Wikisource.  There is already a policy in
place which allows the works of French writers to
treated as public domain in the English Wikisource yet
forbidden the French Wikisource per disscusion on this
very list.  I see this situation as much less
problematic.  We are not going to be dealing with
fictional works under this license, but rather the
sort of documents that can be misrepresented by
modifications.  These are works which if unavailable
to Wikisource will be irreplaceable.  This is not at
all like Wikipedia.  If WP has an image of a butterfly
that is under a license you do not like, then you can
go take your own picture and release under GFDL.  If
Wikisource cannot host a Constitution or treaty, we
cannot simply make our own version released under the
GFDL.  You said before these works have no place at
Wikisource, but I do not think you have a real
understanding of what Wikisource is trying to be well
enough to make such a judgment.  If you simply want
Wikisource to be a dumping ground for the material you
cannot get enough votes to delete from Wikipedia but
would otherwise would fit WP's goald then you would be
right.  However if you expect Wikisource to be it's
own project, with self-determined goals, you must let
us judge what has a place within those goals.  The
ability to modify material is for the most part not a
concern at Wikisource; it is not a concern to anyone
who comes to find things at Wikisource, and it not a
concern of the editors adding material.  

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