Michael Hart supposedly wrote:

I've also heard that many of those who complain, actually use our eBooks in secret, and ONLY want the provenance so they can steal them without giving credit where credit is due.

Michael, Michael, Michael -- you're grasping at straws trying to justify not providing the provenance of any PG works. Let's analyze what you wrote. Here's a portion of the Boilerplate, the "TOU" (Terms of Use) from a 2004 text. (from ftp://sailor.gutenberg.org/pub/gutenberg/etext04/ge71v10.txt ) ********************************************************************** DISTRIBUTION UNDER "PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm" You may distribute copies of this eBook electronically, or by disk, book or any other medium if you either delete this "Small Print!" and all other references to Project Gutenberg, or: [Snip of various restrictions when the small print is kept, including paying a 20% royalty if profits are made from the work.] ********************************************************************** Parsing the Distribution Notice, we see two and only two scenarios (due to the "either/or" construct): 1) Anyone may distribute copies of this eBook electronically, or by *any other medium* (implying conversion), without *any* stated restrictions whatsoever so long as the "small print" and any references to the name "Project Gutenberg" are removed (that is, no one will know for sure the work came from the PG Library.) 2) Follow the restrictions if the "small print" and/or "Project Gutenberg" is mentioned as the source. Michael, PG *is allowing* people to use PG's texts "in secret" (whatever that means), and is welcoming them to be used that way! You are essentially saying they should not use them this way, in contradiction to PG's own small print. There are several strong arguments for including the provenance of PG texts in metadata, which have been discussed ad nauseum here by quite a few sharp people. For example, the leaders and several volunteers of DP have stated it is a good thing to do (and I believe some of them have said it should be a basic requirement.) What I suggest PG does is to take a poll, using an independent forum, of the various volunteers and users of PG texts, and *ask them* the following question: Should PG include the full details of the source document(s) used to produce every PG text? Supposing 2/3 of the respondents said 'yes'. Would PG honor the wishes of the volunteers and users by then requiring the source information be included in the text's metadata? Note that over the years the PG volunteers have put in hundreds of thousands hours (and maybe over a million hours) of time to help build the PG Library collection. They have a valid claim of "moral co-ownership" of what has been produced, and should collectively have their say in the future development of the collection. (One reason why I believe PGLAF should become a member-"owned" organization -- currently its Articles of Corporation state it has no members.) Michael, I'd like to hear from you *all* the reasons you have for why the provenance of PG texts should not be included in the metadata. How does providing the provenance harm the goals of PG? I have yet to hear a cogent and logical argument. Why not write a specific FAQ on this topic? Jon Noring