On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 8:16 PM, M. Williamson <node...@gmail.com> wrote: > Well, I just think any repository that lets some non-free works slip through > the cracks by accident, can't suddenly be disqualified unless we're ready to > disqualify Wikipedia too. So what category do we fit into that they do not?
I wouldn't disqualify any project which is effectively employing best efforts to remove non-free content. My limited browsing of Open Source Books project indicates it is mostly junk and has a very high percentage of non-free content, and that it doesn't appear that they are staying on top of it. The Million Book Project is a bit better, but they often don't include sufficient metadata and I've seen many works with a year of publication that is post 1950 yet "pre-1923" is used as the public domain justification. Here are two that I noted as copyrighted back in May. http://www.archive.org/details/DeskWorkEnglishGrammer http://www.archive.org/details/PearsCyclopaedia Here is one of a series that I noted as copyrighted back in 2008. http://www.archive.org/details/americasmusic030111mbp -- John Vandenberg _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
