Re: Real Competition to PG
just as a reminder, in regard to the word "competition" in the subject-header of this thread, michael hart's emphasis on "unlimited distribution" means that _any_ use of the p.g. e-texts is to be considered as a "win", and thus the term "competition" would be out of place. good to remind ourselves of that every once in a while. -bowerbird
It all depends on whether you think Amazon has us working for them, or whether you think Project Gutenberg has Amazon working for us... mh On Sun, 15 Nov 2009, Bowerbird@aol.com wrote:
just as a reminder, in regard to the word "competition" in the subject-header of this thread, michael hart's emphasis on "unlimited distribution" means that _any_ use of the p.g. e-texts is to be considered as a "win", and thus the term "competition" would be out of place.
good to remind ourselves of that every once in a while.
-bowerbird
When I speak of "competition" it is in the context of taking a good close honest look at what PG contributes to the world, for good or for bad, in comparison to that which others contribute to the world, for good or for bad. For example Google *claims* a slogan of "Do No Evil" but as one who has had to work with Google, I find the slogan laughable. Whether you want to call them "competition", "frenemies", "other ways for readers to get good books to read, etc." shouldn't stop you from taking a good hard look at what PG is doing verses what "the other guy" is doing - and seeing what one can learn from them. I work a lot on a volunteer basis for one non-profit which "competes" with other non-profits, and we always need to ask ourselves how what we do interacts with what the "competition" is doing - even though both sides would agree we are serving the public good. Then again, most for-profit enterprises ALSO believe they are serving the public good! The argument can always be made: if you don't like what we offer then just don't buy it! Re "Unlimited Distribution" PG puts *some* legal terms on those distributions, terms which presumably PG means. If some individuals or organizations violate the terms of these distributions, then presumable PG *would not* consider that a "win." If PG *does* consider the distribution a "win" even when distributed contrary to the stated terms, then I would suggest that PG needs to alter or remove the terms. Also PG lives and dies via copyright law, and I would think that PG would find any company or government action which takes books out of the public domain, or which moves them from a limbo status back into a private ownership status, or which violates a reasonable rational spirit of the Article 1 of the Constitution: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for LIMITED TIMES to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" - any of these are bad things from the PG point of view and therefore represents "competition." The whole Google limbo thing - I would claim - arisen because of the Mickey Mouse extensions to copyright duration such that publishers really aren't interested in supporting a work of art anymore -- but they are also interested in making sure that no one else can support that work of art either! Further, in my interactions with PG in terms of trying to get them to support distribution on this that or the other E-book reader, and in terms of Michael's comments on this forum, it would seem to me in practice PG is very conflicted re the issue of distribution to "support" this that or the other E-book reader, presumably because at least some people associated with PG are pretty uncomfortable about many of the DRM side-effects associated with the growth of those E-book readers. Personally, I find many of the DRM issues uncomfortable also, but again, I am an omnivore when it comes to my reading, and I usually find it pretty easy to "route around" the greatest stupidities in for-profit companies offerings and still read what I want to read - and without stealing anything. One of the most uncomfortable things about the Kindle DRM scheme, for example, is that it prevents lending of E-Books by libraries to Kindle users - and I think that is a pretty bad thing! Also "competition" is a good thing, and tends eventually to limit the extent that for-profit companies can do stupid things - look for example how the music market has played out.
As to the major points made below: 1. The more people PG eBooks get to, the more successful we are. Period! If our efforts are multiplied by those of Amazon, Sony, et. al. then a whole world should be better off for it. Personally, I would have the effort be one of cooperation, thanks, and reinvestment. 2. If you look at "Eldred v Ashcroft" which was previously labeled as per "Hart v Reno" you will see that our copyright law must consider itself to be permanent for all practical intents and purposes. 3. Even it not permanent, anything new you expose your 5 year olds to now won't have the copyright expire until they are 100 years old. That is certainly permanent enough for me, as I cannot legally show the movies I was FORCED to see when studying slavery in grade school, which would have been public domain no more than 56 years after copyrighted, which means the CONTINUITY OF OUR CULTURE is being left to corporations that have "lifespans" of over 100 years, but attention spans of 1 quarter. On Mon, 16 Nov 2009, James Adcock wrote:
When I speak of “competition” it is in the context of taking a good close honest look at what PG contributes to the world, for good or for bad, in comparison to that which others contribute to the world, for good or for bad. For example Google *claims* a slogan of “Do No Evil” but as one who has had to work with Google, I find the slogan laughable. Whether you want to call them “competition”, “frenemies”, “other ways for readers to get good books to read, etc.” shouldn’t stop you from taking a good hard look at what PG is doing verses what “the other guy” is doing – and seeing what one can learn from them. I work a lot on a volunteer basis for one non-profit which “competes” with other non-profits, and we always need to ask ourselves how what we do interacts with what the “competition” is doing – even though both sides would agree we are serving the public good. Then again, most for-profit enterprises ALSO believe they are serving the public good! The argument can always be made: if you don’t like what we offer then just don’t buy it!
Re “Unlimited Distribution” PG puts *some* legal terms on those distributions, terms which presumably PG means. If some individuals or organizations violate the terms of these distributions, then presumable PG *would not* consider that a “win.” If PG *does* consider the distribution a “win” even when distributed contrary to the stated terms, then I would suggest that PG needs to alter or remove the terms. Also PG lives and dies via copyright law, and I would think that PG would find any company or government action which takes books out of the public domain, or which moves them from a limbo status back into a private ownership status, or which violates a reasonable rational spirit of the Article 1 of the Constitution: “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for LIMITED TIMES to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries” – any of these are bad things from the PG point of view and therefore represents “competition.” The whole Google limbo thing – I would claim – arisen because of the Mickey Mouse extensions to copyright duration such that publishers really aren’t interested in supporting a work of art anymore -- but they are also interested in making sure that no one else can support that work of art either!
Further, in my interactions with PG in terms of trying to get them to support distribution on this that or the other E-book reader, and in terms of Michael’s comments on this forum, it would seem to me in practice PG is very conflicted re the issue of distribution to “support” this that or the other E-book reader, presumably because at least some people associated with PG are pretty uncomfortable about many of the DRM side-effects associated with the growth of those E-book readers. Personally, I find many of the DRM issues uncomfortable also, but again, I am an omnivore when it comes to my reading, and I usually find it pretty easy to “route around” the greatest stupidities in for-profit companies offerings and still read what I want to read – and without stealing anything. One of the most uncomfortable things about the Kindle DRM scheme, for example, is that it prevents lending of E-Books by libraries to Kindle users – and I think that is a pretty bad thing! Also “competition” is a good thing, and tends eventually to limit the extent that for-profit companies can do stupid things – look for example how the music market has played out.
1. The more people PG eBooks get to, the more successful we are. Period! If our efforts are multiplied by those of Amazon, Sony, et. al. then a whole world should be better off for it. Personally, I would have the effort be one of cooperation, thanks, and reinvestment.
Not disagreeing with anything you said, but, in practice many people with E-book readers find at least the amount of some of the PG legalese at the start of some PG E-books to be off-putting -- given that when reading on E-books the legalese can run about a dozen pages. Now on some of EPUBs and MOBIs that PG distributes the bulk of the legalese is moved to the back of the book, but in other cases it's in the front. Suggest if you want greater acceptance of PG books by the E-reader crowd, PG would be better off moving the bulk of the legalese to the rear of the E-books. Further, an naïve reader who doesn't really know or understand PG can be made very nervous about the PG legalese, even if only to be afraid to share E-books with friends -- which I think is not the intent of the legalese. For example, see Huck Finn #76 where I just counted the pages of legalese at the start of the book when read in MOBI format and it came to literally a dozen pages. Also, the legalese tends to come out not even formatted correctly, which also doesn't help first impressions.
Many of PG's very old etexts (which #76 certainly qualifies as) have considerable legalese at both the front and the back. Etexts since about #4000-#5000 have most of it at the back, with only the book's basic info at the front. Old etexts that get cleaned up and reposted have their old legalese removed and replaced with the current material. Re #76 - you must be looking at a very old version of it. The current version, reposted in 2006, has only the book's basic info at the front and all the legalese at the back. Al ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Adcock" <jimad@msn.com> To: "'Michael S. Hart'" <hart@pglaf.org>; "'Project Gutenberg Volunteer Discussion'" <gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 3:42 PM Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: !@! Re: Re: Real Competition to PG
1. The more people PG eBooks get to, the more successful we are. Period! If our efforts are multiplied by those of Amazon, Sony, et. al. then a whole world should be better off for it. Personally, I would have the effort be one of cooperation, thanks, and reinvestment.
Not disagreeing with anything you said, but, in practice many people with E-book readers find at least the amount of some of the PG legalese at the start of some PG E-books to be off-putting -- given that when reading on E-books the legalese can run about a dozen pages. Now on some of EPUBs and MOBIs that PG distributes the bulk of the legalese is moved to the back of the book, but in other cases it's in the front. Suggest if you want greater acceptance of PG books by the E-reader crowd, PG would be better off moving the bulk of the legalese to the rear of the E-books. Further, an naïve reader who doesn't really know or understand PG can be made very nervous about the PG legalese, even if only to be afraid to share E-books with friends -- which I think is not the intent of the legalese.
For example, see Huck Finn #76 where I just counted the pages of legalese at the start of the book when read in MOBI format and it came to literally a dozen pages. Also, the legalese tends to come out not even formatted correctly, which also doesn't help first impressions.
_______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, Al Haines (shaw) wrote:
Many of PG's very old etexts (which #76 certainly qualifies as) have considerable legalese at both the front and the back. Etexts since about #4000-#5000 have most of it at the back, with only the book's basic info at the front. Old etexts that get cleaned up and reposted have their old legalese removed and replaced with the current material.
Just a small nit-picky clarification here. The early texts had _all_ the legalese at the front, with only a short "End of this Project Gutenberg Etext" line at the end. See for example: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3999/old/im86b10.txt --Andrew
Andrew is correct. Mea culpa. Al ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Sly" <sly@victoria.tc.ca> To: "Project Gutenberg Volunteer Discussion" <gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org> Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 9:28 AM Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: !@! Re: Re: Real Competition to PG
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, Al Haines (shaw) wrote:
Many of PG's very old etexts (which #76 certainly qualifies as) have considerable legalese at both the front and the back. Etexts since about #4000-#5000 have most of it at the back, with only the book's basic info at the front. Old etexts that get cleaned up and reposted have their old legalese removed and replaced with the current material.
Just a small nit-picky clarification here. The early texts had _all_ the legalese at the front, with only a short "End of this Project Gutenberg Etext" line at the end.
See for example: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3999/old/im86b10.txt
--Andrew
_______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d
Not sure what you mean by an "old" version of #76. Yesterday I go to the PG website. I say "Mark Twain." It give me a list of texts. I saw OKAY give me #76 in MOBI format. I read a page of two of introductory stuff like table of contents, and then I am hit with 12 pages of legalese. Re "Old stuff vs. New Stuff" on PG -- guess which customers download and read more often?
Re #76 - you must be looking at a very old version of it. The current version, reposted in 2006, has only the book's basic info at the front and all the legalese at the back.
James Adcock wrote:
Not sure what you mean by an "old" version of #76. Yesterday I go to the PG website. I say "Mark Twain." It give me a list of texts. I saw OKAY give me #76 in MOBI format. I read a page of two of introductory stuff like table of contents, and then I am hit with 12 pages of legalese.
#76 is a book split into multiple html files, mobi format is just one file, so you have to put all parts of #76 in some order and then bake them sequentially into the mobi. (Same goes for epub, plucker etc.) The file that comes up first in the mobi format (unsurprisingly) is the TOC, you are supposed to follow the links to the parts. -- Marcello Perathoner webmaster@gutenberg.org
The file that comes up first in the mobi format (unsurprisingly) is the TOC, you are supposed to follow the links to the parts.
Don't know of any users of E-book readers who actually ever follow links in the TOC, perhaps in part because clicking on the links in the TOCs doesn't even work on many E-book readers. First Gen Kindles "worked" on TOC, more recent generations do not. What I do know many users of E-book readers do do is complain endlessly about the amount of PG legalese they have to scroll through at the start of PG books, and how as far as they are concerned these stuff makes PG books intolerable as far as they are concerned so they like getting books somewhere else like mobileread (which are typically just PG books with the legalese removed) For some people the PG legalese offends their esthetics of the book experience so much that they will not even consider the PG books. (PG txt conventions offend my sense of esthetics, but that is a different topic)
Jim Adcock wrote:
Suggest if you want greater acceptance of PG books by the E-reader crowd, PG would be better off moving the bulk of the legalese to the rear of the E-books. Further, an naïve reader who doesn't really know or understand PG can be made very nervous about the PG legalese, even if only to be afraid to share E-books with friends -- which I think is not the intent of the legalese.
About 9% of gutenberg.org users come from India. I guess they might get pretty nervous about all that verbiage and maybe even wonder if they have indeed downloaded an *English* book? Isn't it ironic that books snarfed from PG pop up everywhere with the legalese cleanly cut out? Because the PG license requires royalties but the cutting out is for free. A simple pointer to the CC-Attribution-ShareAlike or CC-Public-Domain license and a single line: this book was produced by Project Gutenberg etc. would have done a much better job because: - readers would not have been inconvenienced by endless scrolling, - readers would have actually understood the meaning, - the Project Gutenberg name and address would have been kept by at least some republisher and so - the 'electronic path' would have been kept open. The PG license is nothing but a textbook example of how an organisation goes to great pains to just damage itself. -- Marcello Perathoner webmaster@gutenberg.org
I though we decided long ago to move most of the legalese to the end, just for these reasons. . .VERY hard on small screens. mh On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, Marcello Perathoner wrote:
Jim Adcock wrote:
Suggest if you want greater acceptance of PG books by the E-reader crowd, PG would be better off moving the bulk of the legalese to the rear of the E-books. Further, an naïve reader who doesn't really know or understand PG can be made very nervous about the PG legalese, even if only to be afraid to share E-books with friends -- which I think is not the intent of the legalese.
About 9% of gutenberg.org users come from India. I guess they might get pretty nervous about all that verbiage and maybe even wonder if they have indeed downloaded an *English* book?
Isn't it ironic that books snarfed from PG pop up everywhere with the legalese cleanly cut out? Because the PG license requires royalties but the cutting out is for free.
A simple pointer to the CC-Attribution-ShareAlike or CC-Public-Domain license and a single line: this book was produced by Project Gutenberg etc. would have done a much better job because:
- readers would not have been inconvenienced by endless scrolling, - readers would have actually understood the meaning, - the Project Gutenberg name and address would have been kept by at least some republisher and so - the 'electronic path' would have been kept open.
The PG license is nothing but a textbook example of how an organisation goes to great pains to just damage itself.
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 12:07:00PM -0800, Michael S. Hart wrote:
I though we decided long ago to move most of the legalese to the end, just for these reasons. . .VERY hard on small screens.
We did. There is not a whole lot up top -- just the short paragraph legalese, and metadata. The "*** START OF" and "*** END OF" have been reliable indicators of where the eBook content starts for very many years (since at least #2000 or so). There are still hundreds of titles that have not been updated from the old-style, where legalese is up top. But this is a relatively small number. -- Greg
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, Marcello Perathoner wrote:
Jim Adcock wrote:
Suggest if you want greater acceptance of PG books by the E-reader crowd, PG would be better off moving the bulk of the legalese to the rear of the E-books. Further, an naïve reader who doesn't really know or understand PG can be made very nervous about the PG legalese, even if only to be afraid to share E-books with friends -- which I think is not the intent of the legalese.
About 9% of gutenberg.org users come from India. I guess they might get pretty nervous about all that verbiage and maybe even wonder if they have indeed downloaded an *English* book?
Isn't it ironic that books snarfed from PG pop up everywhere with the legalese cleanly cut out? Because the PG license requires royalties but the cutting out is for free.
A simple pointer to the CC-Attribution-ShareAlike or CC-Public-Domain license and a single line: this book was produced by Project Gutenberg etc. would have done a much better job because:
- readers would not have been inconvenienced by endless scrolling, - readers would have actually understood the meaning, - the Project Gutenberg name and address would have been kept by at least some republisher and so - the 'electronic path' would have been kept open.
The PG license is nothing but a textbook example of how an organisation goes to great pains to just damage itself.
_______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d
Do we have any other percentages of where our readers hail from? mh On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, Marcello Perathoner wrote:
Jim Adcock wrote:
Suggest if you want greater acceptance of PG books by the E-reader crowd, PG would be better off moving the bulk of the legalese to the rear of the E-books. Further, an naïve reader who doesn't really know or understand PG can be made very nervous about the PG legalese, even if only to be afraid to share E-books with friends -- which I think is not the intent of the legalese.
About 9% of gutenberg.org users come from India. I guess they might get pretty nervous about all that verbiage and maybe even wonder if they have indeed downloaded an *English* book?
Isn't it ironic that books snarfed from PG pop up everywhere with the legalese cleanly cut out? Because the PG license requires royalties but the cutting out is for free.
A simple pointer to the CC-Attribution-ShareAlike or CC-Public-Domain license and a single line: this book was produced by Project Gutenberg etc. would have done a much better job because:
- readers would not have been inconvenienced by endless scrolling, - readers would have actually understood the meaning, - the Project Gutenberg name and address would have been kept by at least some republisher and so - the 'electronic path' would have been kept open.
The PG license is nothing but a textbook example of how an organisation goes to great pains to just damage itself.
Michael S. Hart wrote:
Do we have any other percentages of where our readers hail from?
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/gutenberg.org -- Marcello Perathoner webmaster@gutenberg.org
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 07:17:20PM +0100, Marcello Perathoner wrote:
Jim Adcock wrote: Isn't it ironic that books snarfed from PG pop up everywhere with the legalese cleanly cut out? Because the PG license requires royalties but the cutting out is for free.
A simple pointer to the CC-Attribution-ShareAlike or CC-Public-Domain license and a single line: this book was produced by Project Gutenberg etc. would have done a much better job because:
- readers would not have been inconvenienced by endless scrolling, - readers would have actually understood the meaning, - the Project Gutenberg name and address would have been kept by at least some republisher and so - the 'electronic path' would have been kept open.
The PG license is nothing but a textbook example of how an organisation goes to great pains to just damage itself.
This isn't fair. The Project Gutenberg license, in its earlier form, was created at about the same time (1991) that Stallman was working on GPL version 1. This predates the CC licenses by decades. We had many thousands of published eBooks before the CC license suite was even thought of. The PG license is a trademark license, with many words devoted to explaining that the eBook is free. Restrictions are for commercial use of the Project Gutenberg name, and are described in many more words (maybe too many, I agree). You know all of this, so I don't even understand why you're bringing this up. Other than the CC public domain grant, the purpose of the PG license is not the same as the CC licenses, nor the GPL or similar "free" licenses. Those are about taking something that is copyrighted, and granting a limited license to use it. The PG license is about clearly stating that the item is public domain, and only restricts how the Project Gutenberg name may be used in conjunction with variations. The current header, with the boilerplate up top, is very close to your "simple pointer" suggestion above. The far longer "small print," after the text, can be reformatted, put in a separate file, etc. While this *could* be referenced by a URL or somesuch, everyone recognizes that the eBook files tend to be redistributed independently of the gutenberg.org site, and that's why they start out at gutenberg.org with the long small print attached. With the structure of the current small print (which has been in place since #2000 or so, and retroactively applied to most of everything else), I think it's as friendly as any other title page, spash page, etc. for mobile devices. All that said, it's certainly possible to change the layout or content of the license. But I don't see how what is suggested above, for header content, is sigificantly different from what we are doing now. -- Greg
Sorry, but in your-all cut-and-paste efforts you have assigned blame to me (jimad) for some email that someone else wrote -- not me. Not one word of what you-all attributed to me below was actually written by me. -----Original Message----- From: gutvol-d-bounces@lists.pglaf.org [mailto:gutvol-d-bounces@lists.pglaf.org] On Behalf Of Greg Newby Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 12:59 PM To: Project Gutenberg Volunteer Discussion Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: !@! Re: Re: Real Competition to PG On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 07:17:20PM +0100, Marcello Perathoner wrote:
Jim Adcock wrote: Isn't it ironic that books snarfed from PG pop up everywhere with the legalese cleanly cut out? Because the PG license requires royalties but the cutting out is for free.
A simple pointer to the CC-Attribution-ShareAlike or CC-Public-Domain license and a single line: this book was produced by Project Gutenberg etc. would have done a much better job because:
- readers would not have been inconvenienced by endless scrolling, - readers would have actually understood the meaning, - the Project Gutenberg name and address would have been kept by at least some republisher and so - the 'electronic path' would have been kept open.
The PG license is nothing but a textbook example of how an organisation goes to great pains to just damage itself.
This isn't fair. The Project Gutenberg license, in its earlier form, was created at about the same time (1991) that Stallman was working on GPL version 1. This predates the CC licenses by decades. We had many thousands of published eBooks before the CC license suite was even thought of. The PG license is a trademark license, with many words devoted to explaining that the eBook is free. Restrictions are for commercial use of the Project Gutenberg name, and are described in many more words (maybe too many, I agree). You know all of this, so I don't even understand why you're bringing this up. Other than the CC public domain grant, the purpose of the PG license is not the same as the CC licenses, nor the GPL or similar "free" licenses. Those are about taking something that is copyrighted, and granting a limited license to use it. The PG license is about clearly stating that the item is public domain, and only restricts how the Project Gutenberg name may be used in conjunction with variations. The current header, with the boilerplate up top, is very close to your "simple pointer" suggestion above. The far longer "small print," after the text, can be reformatted, put in a separate file, etc. While this *could* be referenced by a URL or somesuch, everyone recognizes that the eBook files tend to be redistributed independently of the gutenberg.org site, and that's why they start out at gutenberg.org with the long small print attached. With the structure of the current small print (which has been in place since #2000 or so, and retroactively applied to most of everything else), I think it's as friendly as any other title page, spash page, etc. for mobile devices. All that said, it's certainly possible to change the layout or content of the license. But I don't see how what is suggested above, for header content, is sigificantly different from what we are doing now. -- Greg _______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d
Greg Newby wrote:
The PG license is nothing but a textbook example of how an organisation goes to great pains to just damage itself.
This isn't fair. The Project Gutenberg license, in its earlier form, was created at about the same time (1991) that Stallman was working on GPL version 1. This predates the CC licenses by decades. We had many thousands of published eBooks before the CC license suite was even thought of.
And a decade after CC was established, why doesn't PG switch?
The PG license is a trademark license, with many words devoted to explaining that the eBook is free. Restrictions are for commercial use of the Project Gutenberg name, and are described in many more words (maybe too many, I agree). You know all of this, so I don't even understand why you're bringing this up.
You need to be a lawyer to understand that byzantine point. People rightly judge that nobody would expend that many words if they just wanted to give something away. If something looks like a used car sales contract and reads like a used car sales contract then they think it is a used car sales contract. 1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. Surely an onerous thing to have to do if you just want to read a PD book. 1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Here we are claiming bogus copyrights. You don't get a copyright for throwing together a motley collection that has no inclusion standard other than that you could somehow get hold of one copy of the book. And then DP would hold that copyright and not PG.
Other than the CC public domain grant, the purpose of the PG license is not the same as the CC licenses, nor the GPL or similar "free" licenses. Those are about taking something that is copyrighted, and granting a limited license to use it. The PG license is about clearly stating that the item is public domain, and only restricts how the Project Gutenberg name may be used in conjunction with variations.
You don't see Penguin print an essay about trademarks in each book. So why do we? Just say: This is the Project Gutenberg (tm) ebook of ... AFAICS everybody republishes PG texts with the license removed anyway. The license just makes sure people remove the Project Gutenberg name from each and every book they republish. How many 'royalties' did the trademark earn us anyway? -- Marcello Perathoner webmaster@gutenberg.org
participants (9)
-
Al Haines (shaw) -
Andrew Sly -
Bowerbird＠aol.com -
Greg Newby -
James Adcock -
Jim Adcock
-
Marcello Perathoner -
Michael S. Hart -
Michael S. Hart