Michael Hart wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005, Michael Dyck wrote:
It sounds like this is talking about cases where there's discussion about whether to post a submission as a single ebook or as multiple parts (or both). Whereas I thought we were talking about cases where someone advocates the removal of a submission (or the replacement of one with another). Do you see these as the same issue? They seem quite different to me.
Sorry, I should have been more specific about these examples.
In many case people wanted to delete files we were offering or preparing to offer, or to move all of a certain class of work into one single file, and delete the individual files. This sort of discussion happens more often than you might think.
Right. I understand that there can be debate about -- whether PG has the legal right to post a work, and -- the best way to package a (long or multi-part) work, but neither of these sounds particularly Orwellian. What I was talking about, and what (it seems) you were talking about when you started this thread (about "rewriting history"), was the removal of existing PG texts, and their replacement by different texts (i.e., different editions, not just a repackaging of the same content). You gave the example of ebook #100, the Complete Works of Shakespeare, whose removal was recently suggested, and analogized this to the hypothetical submission of the Britannica 11th this year, only to have it removed in a decade. So, leaving aside cases where someone says "You don't have the necessary permission to put that work online", or "This work would be better split into parts / joined into one", do you have examples (like ebook #100) where someone has advocated the removal of an existing PG text, and (optionally) its replacement by a significantly different text? -Michael Dyck