Summary

Scriptorium/Archives/2010-02

“ If determining whether something is under copyright or in the public domain were so straightforward we would not be having this discussion. There is a very wide gap between what is clearly in one camp or the other. No lawyer can give a definitive answer that will safely apply in all circumstances. The effective ones are able to argue either side of a case, and win. ”
Source: Wikisource

Scriptorium/Archives/2010-02

“ Definitely no go Eclecticology is right: what 32.2 allows is to "make or publish, for the purposes of news reporting or news summary, a report of a lecture given in public, or an address of a political nature given at a public meeting", which does not equate the complete text, and does not permit the other rights also required by Wikisource's free content definition, beyond just publication (that is, modification and exploitation by anyone, in any form, and for any purpose) It certainly does not make the work public domain, as the use of a PD-* template would suggest. ”
Source: Wikisource

Scriptorium/Archives/2010-02

“ Please note that this template does not let users introduce annotations. Users are also not supposed use the template in order to introduce variant spellings; the scope of "corrections" is only to report an obvious error made by the editor. Some users at fr.ws insisted on having the possibility to show texts with modern spelling. The danger is that this strongly interfers with the proofreading process, and I think it is not acceptable to let users modernize text directly in the Page: namespace. In addition, modernizing each occurence of each word is particularly stupid. ”
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature