[free-sklyarov] _Alice_ read aloud

Jon O . jono at microshaft.org
Fri Aug 24 23:31:20 PDT 2001

Yes, I think you've got something here...

Furthermore, The Project Gutenberg License states:

You may distribute copies of this etext electronically, or by
disk, book or any other medium if...

The etext may be readily converted by the reader at
          no expense into plain ASCII, EBCDIC or equivalent
          form by the program that displays the etext (as is
          the case, for instance, with most word processors);

     [*]  You provide, or agree to also provide on request at
          no additional cost, fee or expense, a copy of the
          etext in its original plain ASCII form (or in EBCDIC
          or other equivalent proprietary form).

So, not only do we have a derivative, but as it states above, 
restrictions which are not part of the gutenberg license. I've 
snipped parts, you should check the whole license:

There is a big "OR" in the license after an "if" and it may be

On 24-Aug-2001, Benjamin Krueger wrote:
> I think the key point that this individual must be made aware of is that he
> has not created a new and unique work. This project is clearly and unarguably
> a derivative work. Further, this work is extremely easy to detach from
> Carroll's original work. They're goddamned words, and the formatting of the
> words does not change their meaning.
> Bottom line, this is not a unique work. Ask this fellow to try his little
> trick with a Harlequin novel, or one of the Harry Potter books, and try to
> copyright it as a "new and unique work". Or maybe a Disney book; I'm sure
> their lawyers would have a field day. Email me after he loses the lawsuit.
> Benjamin Krueger
> Seattle, Wa
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 10:58:00PM -0600, Will Janoschka wrote:
> > James S. Huggins said:
> >  
> > > The use of new fonts, new graphics, new cover art, etc., does not restore or
> > > transfer or grant a new copyright in the now public domain work.
> > 
> > > It does, however, create a new work.
> > 
> > >Peter Zelchenko (pete at suba.com) Chicago, Illinois claims:
> > 
> > >>I guess I would like to reiterate that this version of Alice is not
> > >>public domain but is a unique new work and copyrightable.
> > -snip-
> >  Looks "like copyright misuse" to me.
> > 
> > >>Since my work can't easily be detached from Carroll's in this form,
> > >>my copyright gives me the right to control its use, but I keep it open.
> > -snip-
> > 
> >  What part of copyright law allows him privilege of control after sale?
> >  
> > Note from the web:
> > 
> >      Peter Zelchenko is president and CTO of VolumeOne,
> >      a Chicago-based research and development company focusing
> >      on on-demand printing of books and electronic publishing.
> >      He has been involved in electronic and print media
> >      publishing and design for 25 years.
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > free-sklyarov mailing list
> > free-sklyarov at zork.net
> > http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov
> _______________________________________________
> free-sklyarov mailing list
> free-sklyarov at zork.net
> http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov

More information about the Free-sklyarov mailing list