Le 18 D=E9cembre 2005 14:01, Wouter van Ooijen a =E9crit=A0:
> > You can't turn PD work into something proprietary...
>
> AFAIK you can. You create a derived work, which is automatically
> copyrighted by you. If you owe nothing to the original author you
> affectively have the full copyright, including the right to keep

A devired work is something different. It's not a PD work. All derived wo=
rk=20
must comply with the copyright of the original work. The PD concept appli=
es=20
to the expiration of copyrighted works. PD is the absence of copyright. S=
o,=20
even if new editions of old books are derived works and are copyrighted,=20
their content are not copyrighted, at least not the parts that are in the=
=20
PD; I can even scan the content of new editions, redistribute it for free=
,=20
or encrypt it and ask for millions (hoping that some fools will pay you).=
=20
Even in extremely closed forms, a work in the PD is not proprietary.

> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain :
>
> I don't think that article states what you stated. And anyway, a wiki i=
s
> not the ultimate truth. It is just something written my someone.

All good sources of knowledge are reviewed by peers, which is certainly t=
he=20
case of Wikipedia. I'm pretty sure than enough competent people reviewed=20
this article about Public domain. Even "Nature", a respected scientific=20
publication, considers that Wikipedia is as good as the Britannica=20
encyclopedia: http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html
I was once sceptic about the publication process of Wikipedia, because an=
=20
opened wiki can easily be "defaced", but they decided to "semiclose" it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Semi-protection_policy.

--
Marc

--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist