On Sunday, 22 February 2015, Milos Rancic <mill...@gmail.com> wrote: > As some of you know, we are working on the project [1] with Matica > srpska [2]. Basically, that opens numerous possibilities and here is > one of them. > > My professor, a Board member of Matica srpska and one of two > co-authors of the Normative Grammar of Serbian Language wants to open > the Grammar. > > Before I continue, I want to explain how good faith academics and > university professors in Serbia treat their work in relation to the > open and free access (and I suppose it's quite common for any part of > the world): > > * Personally, they are not motivated by money. They are well > established socially, financially secure and they are mature people, > not fascinated by luxury, living modest lives. > > * They want their works to be as much accessible as it's possible, as > well as as much used by other scientists as it's possible. > > * The only financial issue in such circumstances is related to the > financial safety of particular institution (in this case Matica > srpska). However, financial gains from selling the books are > relatively small, it's about capital works and having them is a kind > of obligation of every intellectual in Serbia and it's questionable > would they lose (small amount of) money by opening the content or they > would actually gain. In other words, I am addressing this issue on the > level of going slowly to the process and making financial analysis of > every step. > > * They don't really get variety of the licensing options. For them, > it's practically the same if it's CC-BY or Encarta web license. If > they open content, their default is that they are not counting on > money from published books. > > * The only issue which they have is to keep their integrity and not to > present their work as their if it could be edited by anyone. (Thus, > inclusion of the dictionaries will go in the form similar to "Milos, > based on Serbian Ornithological Dictionary".) > > And all of those things are clear while we are talking about regular > content. > > What we have here is the *Normative* Grammar. From my perspective, > that can't go under anything which doesn't assume ND part. Obviously > to me, if something is prescriptive work, it should go as-is.
I'm finding this a bit difficult to parse; am I interpreting it correctly if I read it as: because the project is to produce a prescriptive, normative grammar, there's a desired No Derivatives element of any adopted license to prevent the field from being populated with multiple, similar works that would confuse things and undermine the point of the project? > > However, that's my initial assumption. If there is an option to open > it more freely, I'd be happy to hear the argumentation. > > [1] > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:PEG/Interglider.ORG/Wiktionary_Meets_Matica_Srpska > [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:Matica_srpska > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;> > ?subject=unsubscribe> -- Sent from my mobile computing device of Lovecraftian complexity and horror. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
