I realize that it has been a while since this message was posted, but I wanted to briefly comment. Project Gutenberg isn't a library? Who cares. Perhaps the distinction is a big one for the ivory tower types, but for the average reader, and maybe even many of the serious readers, it just doesn't matter. What matters is that person X found their favorite book from childhood, person Y found several great texts that they can adapt to teach English to their students, and person Z discovered a new favorite author. That being said, I still think we should preserve as much of the source information as is practical. It would have been interesting to see his reasons for saying that PG is not a library, unfortunately, either he provided none, or they were not included in the article. However, I don't hold out much hope that they would have been terribly enlightening, considering that elsewhere in his talk he said, "Wisdom precedes knowledge, which precedes information... I'm trying to invert the standard hierarchy." If that were true, it would open the door for a whole new world of excuses. "Yes I'm illiterate. I was born that way." Or perhaps I just missed his point. Aaron Cannon At 06:46 PM 5/7/2005, you wrote:
On 6 May 2005, at 11:29, Michael Hart wrote:
We have received very good conservative legal advice that Project Gutenberg is indeed a library or archive, and probably both, and has been for over a decade.
"Likewise, he encouraged libraries to "push back against the easy assertion that Project Gutenberg is a library.""
(I am not sure what that person was on about though. Full article at <http://www.cornellsun.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/05/06/427b00a8eff7 d>.)
-- branko collin collin@xs4all.nl _______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d
-- E-mail: cannona@fireantproductions.com Skype: cannona MSN Messenger: cannona@hotmail.com (Do not send E-mail to the hotmail address.)