greg said:
>   Incorrect, at least in the case of
>   the book the WashPost article was about.
>   The imprint publisher is Amazon Digital Press. 
>   I'm quite certain this is simply Amazon Inc. 
>   THEY are the publisher.

well, yes, i did see that.  and i wondered about it.

i also checked the 3 other books in the article,
and two of them had different publishers listed.
so it's not quite as cut-and-dried as we'd like...

and it's not as if amazon has to be disqualified
from anybody-can-reprint-the-public-domain.

heck, google's gonna be going into the business
of renting out their library in a _big-time_ way...


>   This is a partial excuse for making a mistake,
>   but does not remove responsibility.

you're forgetting that there is no crime here, so
"mistake" and "responsibility" words don't apply.

p.g. left the door wide open, and people are now
going through it.  what did you expect 'em to do?


>   I encouraged people to volunteer to do previously
>   -- the fact that I don't have time to do it myself
>   doesn't mean I'm against it

well then, i must've missed that "encouragement".
can you point us to archives where we can find it?

i mean, i find it quite easy to believe that you are
"not against it".  but i trust that you'll understand
that stance alone isn't gonna make much happen.

i mean, seriously, back when _i_ was contemplating
doing projects like this, my full intention then was
to become one of the rogue publishers and charge
money and use the proceeds to buy health insurance
for michael hart, since i assume he ain't got much...

i decided against it because it seemed that he didn't
like me all that much, but also because i knew that
someone would paint me as evil for charging a fee...

i just didn't believe it would be someone who is as
fully conversant with copyright law as greg newby...

-bowerbird