On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Oliver Keyes <[email protected]> wrote: > 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?
I would actually say: Is there a point to have a prescriptive work without ND clause? While it's quite fine for descriptive works -- and I am sure that at some point of time we'd get one of the descriptive grammars (at least the latest descriptive Syntax of Serbian Language, made by the same professor) -- I am doubtful about usefulness of a prescriptive work without ND. Which, actually, reminds me that we definitely need a "non-free" repository. For example, we could get that grammar to be quoted in whole, but there is no sense to change it. But, my initial point was: Am I missing something? Would there be any reason why such grammar would have sense without ND clause? _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
