... In short, John Doe will NOT lose his credit, and will NOT lose first credit.

Greg to confirm/deny/clarify as needed.

For the idea of crowdsourcing new files/formats, keep in mind that we are basically talking about keeping the entire forever history, and being able to step back to prior versions/formats. So there is a technical means to insure that whatever wacky stuff happens in the future, the original posted master files will still have their credits. That said, I believe this is a place where the same strong policy we have should remain: credits should be carried forward to derived works. I don't have an immediate solution for dealing with people who lovingly craft a new format, and happen to strip out the credit. (Or the PG boilerplate -- that is another interesting topic that I'd like to leave out of scope temporarily.) But the immediate solution for updating the master format to a new master format is easy: have a smaller number of people who can do that, and some checks (including by human editors) to insure policies are adhered to, and basic quality is maintained. Credit line is one example of history. Another is editorializing, removing intended value-adding items contributed by the original producer (such as page numbers), etc. In some cases, we'll just need to spin a new eBook number or some other sort of fork -- for example, if someone decides to modernize spelling and use of language. The short answer is that I cannot think of reasons an existing eBook's credit line would be removed from the master file(s). (FWIW, this is something Michael Hart was passionate about, too.) -- Greg On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 05:30:48PM -0800, Al Haines wrote:

The two Davids maintain their own productions, which should not be messed with. DPrice is gradually transferring his old productions into the new structure, so there may not be too many of them left. DWidger has probably done most of his. It may be that neither of them has anything left in etext03.

It's standard repost practice, and common courtesy, to maintain the credit to the original producer. During the repost project, the only time I added my name to the credit line was in the HTML version, if I created one. If I didn't do an HTML version, I didn't add myself to the credit line

If a tournamenter (silly word, since this isn't or shouldn't be a contest) reproofs an etext03 text, and creates an HTML version of it, that person's name will accompany the original producer's name, e.g. if something was created by John Doe, and it's reproofed/whatever by bowerbird, who also adds an HTML file, the new credit line will read something like "Produced by John Doe, HTML version by bowerbird". In short, John Doe will NOT lose his credit, and will NOT lose first credit.

Greg to confirm/deny/clarify as needed.

-----Original Message----- From: gutvol-d-bounces@lists.pglaf.org [mailto:gutvol-d-bounces@lists.pglaf.org] On Behalf Of Bowerbird@aol.com Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 4:18 PM To: gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org; bowerbird@aol.com Subject: [gutvol-d] re; it's monday, after noon, let's get the crowdsourcing started

al said:

...

Any done by still-current producers (David Price, David Widger, etc) shouldn't be touched.

except i'm quite sure that's not a rule for this tournament.

as for the 587 files in etext03, it's my understanding that implicit credit for moving these files to the new structure will be given to the whitewashers. that's correct, is it not? surely that is not the aim of this tournament either, is it?

or have we taken "whitewashing" back to its original sense? are you planning to soon charge us to do this work for you?

-bowerbird

_______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d