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

Mon May 1 22:52:45 UTC 2006

Jimmy Wales wrote:
> Birgitte SB wrote:
> 
>>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. 
> 
> 
> This has always been our policy everywhere.  If there are documents
> under Wikisource which are under nonfree licenses, and I am not aware
> that there are, they should be deleted immediately.
> 
> 
>>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 can absolutely see many reasons to modify each of those.  Not *on*
> wikisource, mind you.
> 
> 1. Charles Dickens - perhaps I want to write an updated version,
> modernizing the tale to deal with contemporary issues... I would find
> the public domain text perhaps an excellent starting point.
> 
> 2. Paris Peace Accords - imagine that I am writing historical fiction,
> and I want to explore how some minor change in the provisions of a
> treaty might radically impact history... I might want to include a
> modified version of the Paris Peace Accords in an appendix of my novel.
> 
> 3.  Constitution of Singapore - perhaps I am a free speech advocate
> seeking to persuade people that Singapore's constitution needs to be
> modified in various ways to contribute to a healthier society.
> 
> --Jimbo

Yes.
Birgitte, you may be confusing the *licence* under which the texts are 
available to the public, and the *policy* of non-modification of these 
original texts on wikisource.

Wikisource does not modify the texts itself, but it should seek to make 
modification possible for those who will use the texts later.

Ant