After thinking about John's response, I've realized that those works should go into public domain (actually, under CC-BY, as Serbian laws don't recognize PD outside strictly defined "works not created by author" in the sense of laws and other similar works; it's been explicitly stated that "moral responsibility can't be abandoned", which creates CC-BY conditions). It's about works of public interest and they should be freely accessible.
However, Sj reminded me about the real meaning of ND and this opens two connected issues. The right address for the first one is Creative Commons, while the second one is technical and should be solved inside of Wikidata or Wikisource or even Wikiquote. Let's forget for a moment any normative work. Take as an example any public domain work, like King James' translation of Bible is. There is a need to quote portions of Bible for any relevant reason. It's public domain and we can quote the whole Bible if we want. But we want to be sure that the quote is genuine and not dependent on random vandalism. So, we need a software solution to import particular quote into a Wikipedia article, while not giving a chance anyone to edit it. Back to the licensing. Every normative work needs to be quoted in the verbatim form. But it's not ND, as you should be able to quote any statement of the work. It's not a proprietary license, as you should be able to quote the whole work if you have such need. (A sum of Wikipedia articles could easily quote the whole Normative Grammar.) Thus, we need a kind of "verbatim license", which should say that you could quote any statement and that there is no limit in the number of quotes or percentage of particular work. BTW, I didn't ask this question in relation to the copyright holder rights. This is related to the reliability of particular copy of prescriptive or reference work. You can't say "we guarantee that this particular quote is verbatim" if it could be edited by anyone. And while *our* works should be edited by anyone, we have to rely on verbatim works (thus references). The question is do we have capacity to keep such works on our projects. (There is no question if we want it, as we have Wikisource and Wikiquote.) One thing is a culture of particular Wikimedia project, the other is the need to have software and legal framework for that. On Feb 24, 2015 8:30 PM, "Gergő Tisza" <gti...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 11:51 PM, Milos Rancic <mill...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I would actually say: Is there a point to have a prescriptive work > > without ND clause? > > > Course there is. The text of the CC licenses, for example, is under CC0; > "Creative Commons" is trademarked and that trademark is used to prevent > misuse (but do not prevent e.g. translations). That is a fairly standard > arrangement for free documents which need to have an "official" version. > > I would turn that question around: is there a point for a prescriptive work > to have an ND clause? If someone wrote their alternative version of the > Normative Grammar of Serbian Language from scratch, without reusing > creative elements of the existing text (keep in mind that non-creative > elements, which for a grammar I imagine is the majority of the content, > cannot be copyrighted), would that be somehow less problematic? > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
