On 12/7/11 4:07 PM, Tom Morris wrote: > On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Tom Morris <[email protected]> wrote: >> I think most of them are cataloged. > Actually, let me restate that. I think most of the printed editions > from which the Project Gutenberg were transcribed have been cataloged, > but the transcriptions should probably (certainly?) be considered > editions in their own right. I had always thought of Project Gutenberg texts as distinct editions, probably because I've imagined that the PG editorial process (sometimes in conjunction with Distributed Proofreaders) produces output that I think of (correctly or not) as "high quality" (enjoyable to read, with few typos) but whose relationship to some underlying source is unclear. > An additional complication is that, rather ironically, Project > Gutenberg is claiming copyright on the bibliographic data they do have > and only license it under GPL which isn't compatible with > OpenLibrary's licensing. I have a hard time seeing them winning the > argument that a book's title and author are copyrightable facts, but > stranger things have happened. I think it'd be great to see this > happen, but I suspect it'll be a non-trivial task. Tom
The conflict of licenses -- that's depressing. :-( I was going to ask whether the catalog data could ever be relicensed under a compatible license, but I suspect there are strong feelings around using GPL for the catalog data. Another question: even if the catalog data is being licensed under GPL, it'd be ok to redistribute a list of the Gutenberg text ids and a mapping to OpenLibrary WorkIDs -- that won't be running afoul of the GPL, right? -Raymond _______________________________________________ Ol-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.archive.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ol-discuss To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [email protected]
