On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 05:14:19PM -0500, Joshua Hutchinson wrote:
Several of DP's content providers, myself included, intend over the new few years to find decent editions of works already in PG, but which are not in a state that we would find acceptable if we were proofreading it ourselves (this includes most of the first few thousand texts). Hopefully over time we can update all PG's content to a standard we're happy with.
-- Jon Ingram
As one of the other big content providers over at DP, I can say that Jon's word speak for me perfectly. There is NO reason to exclude the information, but PLENTY of reason to keep it. It was pretty much a no brainer for me.
Josh
I'm just writing to confirm that current practice/policy is to leave such information in the eBooks, however they are provided by the producers. This might include publisher name, location and date, as well as other items (i.e., from the verso page). There are a few things that are still discouraged (such as including the original copyright statement, say from pre-1923, which could confuse readers), but overall there is no prohibition on keeping edition information from the dead trees source(s). Note that this does NOT mean the PG eBooks from such sources must adhere 100% to those single sources. If we get reasonable corrections from other sources, or unknown sources, we will apply them. As has been often stated here, people who are sticklers for adherance to particular printed sources (errata and all) are welcome to start their own eBook project (and we'll even help, per http://gutenberg.org/about). -- Greg