{"id":44,"date":"2008-03-25T18:57:00","date_gmt":"2008-03-25T18:57:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/patrologialatinagraecaetorientalis.wordpress.com\/2008\/03\/25\/disputatiopatrologia-latina\/"},"modified":"2008-03-25T18:57:00","modified_gmt":"2008-03-25T18:57:00","slug":"disputatiopatrologia-latina","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/plgo.org\/?p=44","title":{"rendered":"Disputatio:Patrologia Latina"},"content":{"rendered":"
Aunque la discusi\u00f3n comenz\u00f3 -y al parecer termin\u00f3- en el 2006, los aspectos abarcados siguen plenamente vigentes.<\/span><\/p>\n

Me tomo la libertad de citar el art\u00edculo in extenso, advirtiendo que fue obtenido directamente de la wikisource a la que puede accederse dando click en el t\u00edtulo de este post.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

I am only uploading volume 18, containing the gothic bible and a gothic grammar, but I wanted to create a framework for future uploads of other volumes. It is difficult to squeeze the entire volume on a single page (ca. 7M), but splitting it would be even more difficult, because of the (many!) footnotes.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n
\n
We will probably have to split the text, even though it is the more difficult of the two solutions. Some browsers have dificulties handling pages larger than just a few hundred k, so 7M is way too large for a single page (and for many users it will take an eternity to open, even if their browser can handle the size). I think we have to find a way to split up the page. Christian S<\/a> 14:52, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
I definitely agree with this. I’m sure that each of our pages can have its own footnotes moved with it. A Bible can certainly be divided according to the usual books of the Bible. If the footnotes for the beginning must wait for the apocalypse they may never be read. :-)<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
The other complaint that I want to register is about the use of all capitals on the title page. I know that the PL<\/i> and PG<\/i> were given to these long winded title page descriptions following a precedent that was more characteristic of earlier centuries. Nevertheless, the capital letters were in different sizes. Following modern conventions for this would make the page far more readable. Eclecticology<\/a> 17:56, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
ok, I struggled with my browser to upload this, and the format was badly jumbled (the html-footnote tags are not rendered properly) \u2014 I think I am not quite ready to upload this stuff. Keep in mind that the entire Patrologia consists of 221 volumes of 4-7 MB each<\/i>. I could in principle upload these with an automated script, but the copy-and-paste into the textarea input drives me nuts. I agree that it should be split up, but this will also have to be automated. The capitals issue is minor compared to all this. The original is printed in capitals, so capitals it is. There are a lot<\/i> of different font sizes, and someone would have to go manually over the text and apply fontsize tags. That’s just wasted effort, imho. This is a reference work, where you grep for particular passages, and not something you read from cover to cover, so never mind the capitals on the front page… Anyway, I will not upload any other volumes until I have found a way of (a) conveniently arranging vol. 18 and (b) have automated the upload to format the remaining volumes accordingly. regards, 130.60.142.62<\/a> 09:57, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC) en:User:Dbachmann<\/a>.<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
another point is, if we split up the file, it will be more inconvenient to search and download them. The Patrologia may be better suited as a Gutenberg text. However, Project Gutenberg requires a “due diligence” check that lists the differences from the printed original for every 20th page. That’s a lot of work. I checked a few pages, and I am confident that I am indeed uploading the mere plaintext of Migne, but I wouldn’t sign a declaration that there is not a few bytes left over here or there that were inserted by whoever digitized this. 130.60.142.62<\/a> 10:09, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
I’m well aware how big the PL is, and how each volume is a big folio. The important thing here is how it can be best accessed by the end user. The reason to avoid capitals is also to make it easier for users. Reading the PL from cover to cover has nothing to do with it. Lower case is much easier that playing with font sizes. Eclecticology<\/a> 07:26, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) <\/p>\n
\n
Maybe I have not understood correctly the purpose of Wikisource. Understand that I am familiar with PG, and I tried to contribute to WS in a similar spirit: The work uploaded must be out of copyright, or GFDL. The PL, as it was printed, is out of copyright. Uploading Migne, my aim is to make accessible the text as it was printed in 1848. If they chose to print capital letters in 1848, I will upload the text in capital letters: my aim is not to make a new edition of the PL to accomodate 21st century readers (that would be a task far beyond me). “Reading from cover to cover” has a lot to do with “making it easy for the user”: I expect that users of this text will want to search<\/i> in the text, and not click through the chapters a page at a time. If you split up the text, you may make it easy for users who want to read a page at a time, but you annoy<\/i> users who want to search the entire text. A far more pressing question, imo, is, how to format the footnotes and the column-number-anchors for wiki (so the html-tags don’t show up in the text).<\/dd>\n
For example: We are having an argument at en:Pope_Silvester_II<\/a> whether or not Gerbert was an astrologer. I uploaded the writings of Gerbert to Patrologia_Latina_Vol_139_Silvester_II<\/a> to explore this. The text being on one page, I can very quickly scan all occurrences of horoscopum<\/i>, Mercurium<\/i> etc. If I had split the text in 50 chapters, it would have taken 50 times as long. This is in favour of leaving the writings of a single author on one page. We can very well split up the volumes by author, though.<\/dd>\n
130.60.142.62<\/a> 07:49, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) <\/p>\n
\n
I agree with this; my source for the Historia Scholastica<\/a> of Petrus Comestor is the PL; it seems better to upload the texts by author rather than by source. After all, we don’t index things like Beowulf<\/i> and Judith<\/i> as Cotton Vitellius A.xv<\/i>. While I see the validity of 130.60.142.62’s argument about searching, for something as long as the Historia Scholastica<\/i>, or the Summa Theologia<\/i>, there should be separate pages for each major book or section, with subsections on each page.Notcarlos<\/a> 20:56, 10 May 2005 (UTC)<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n
<\/div>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

[recensere<\/a>]<\/span> Free of copyrigh?<\/span><\/h2>\n
<\/div>\n

The note says: “The digital text may have been converted from the “Patrologia Latina Database”, Copyright 1996 Chadwyck-Healey Inc. (see http:\/\/pld.chadwyck.com\/<\/a> ). Since it is the plaintext of the Patrologia, published between 1844 and 1855, it is free of Copyright.”<\/i> Please correct me if I am wrong, but diffusing a copyrighted electronic text, even in converted form, is a violation of copyright, in this case a violation of Chadwyck-Healey’s copyright, regardless of the fact that the printed original may be and in this case actually is free of copyright.–OL<\/a> (80.84.0.34<\/a> 09:40, 27 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC))<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

It’s a little bit problematic to scrape more than some volumes due of the database protection in the European Union. A public domain version of vol. II can be found now at http:\/\/www.archive.org\/details\/patrologiae00unknuoft<\/a> (without OCR) —172.208.170.20<\/a> 23:50, 12 Februarii 2006 (UTC)<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n
\n
I’m no lawyer, but whta form of copyright is held by http:\/\/pld.chadwyck.com\/<\/a> ? Only on the process of digitalization, not on the text itself, which once wikified, stripped, cut down and restructured will become quite different from the source. What’s the state of our text confronted with Chadwyck-Healey’s one? Maybe we should refurbish our text ASAP… – \u03b5<\/span>\u0394<\/span><\/a>\u03c9<\/span><\/a><\/b> 15:01, 5 Martii 2006 (UTC)<\/dd>\n
As for Vol.II, that’s great! We could OCR it without breaking any copyright.<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
I’m afraid to have to inform you that the first posting above is correct: copyright in the Patrologia Latina Database<\/i> is held by ProQuest Information and Learning Company and its subsidiaries, the publishers of the Chadwyck-Healey databases. The online reproduction of any text downloaded or otherwise derived from the Patrologia Latina Database<\/i>, even in a modified form, is expressly forbidden under the database license as well as under U.S. and U.K. copyright law. We must therefore ask you to remove any text derived from Chadwyck-Healey databases from Wikisource.<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
The CD-ROM and online versions of the Chadwyck-Healey Patrologia Latina Database<\/i> are made available to authorized users at institutions which have purchased the database. Under the end-user license agreement signed by the institution, users are permitted to make single copies of texts for personal use or internal educational use, but ‘Downloading of all or parts of the Products in a systematic or regular manner so as to create a collection of materials comprising all or part of the Products is strictly prohibited whether or not such collection is in electronic or print form.’ Publishing this material on Wikisource is a direct violation of this agreement.<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
In addition, although the the text of the print source, meaning the rare 221-volume set published by Migne between 1844 and 1865, is indeed in the public domain, the Patrologia Latina Database<\/i> is protected within the U.S. as a collective work<\/i> and within the U.K. as a database<\/i> and therefore excerpts downloaded from the database cannot be treated as if they were in the public domain.<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
Matt Kibble, Development Manager, Literature, ProQuest Information and Learning, Cambridge, UK<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n
<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
First of all: if Chadwyck-Healey Inc. have some copyrights on those texts, those will be delete as soon as possible.<\/dd>\n
But I don’t understand: the plain text of Patrologia Latina<\/i> is in Public Domain because of his age.<\/dd>\n
The copyright is only on the Patrologia Latina Database<\/i>, but could not protect the text in PD.<\/dd>\n
For example: Ciceronis Opera omnia<\/i> is in Public Domain because of his age, if I write a book or a CDrom using the Cicero’s texts I held the copyright on the book\/CDrom, but not on the original Cicero’s texts, that remain anyway in Public Domain.<\/dd>\n
Otherwise anyone who write a copyrighted book\/CDrom\/website using the Ciceros’ texts could pretend the copyright on those ancient texts writed by Cicero.<\/dd>\n
Isn’t?<\/dd>\n
Sorry, if I have no reason, but I would understand better.<\/dd>\n
And sorry for my english… :) —Accurimbono<\/a> 17:50, 12 septembri 2006 (UTC)<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n
<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n
\n
They do not have copyright on the text. They have copyright on their database. Afaict, Wikisource did not copy the intrinsic properties of the database, such as its architecture or searchability, but only its content, i.e. the text, which is public domain. Therefore there is no copyright infringement by Wikisource. ThomasV<\/a> 21:48, 12 septembri 2006 (UTC)<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
In addition, they might have a copyright of a special formating<\/i> (a very special and unusual one), on a special selection<\/i> or collection<\/i> with other texts, on remarks<\/i> and so on; but the text will stay in PD like ThomasV said. oldwikisource:User:-jkb-<\/a>, 217.83.102.17<\/a> 06:23, 13 septembri 2006 (UTC) <\/p>\n
\n
Just to soothe any cry, and as I stated some months agfo, I see a lot of strange markup tags that don’t belong to Minge at all and have to be deleted. Especially if Wikisource has nothing to do with them… \u03b5<\/span>\u0394<\/span><\/a>\u03c9<\/span><\/a><\/b><\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n
<\/div>\n

To clarify: the printed text of Migne’s Patrologia Latina<\/i> is in the public domain, which means that anyone who has access to these rare texts would be free to re-key or scan the text from the print volumes and publish them online. However, the electronic text of the Chadwyck-Healey database is an entirely different matter. The digitisation has been carried out at considerable expense, through double-keying from the source texts, SGML encoding, building into a full-text database and publishing on CD-ROM. Chadwyck-Healey’s copyright therefore covers the electronic version of text itself, not just the formatting. The fact that the source volumes on which the electronic text is based are in the public domain does not alter the fact that copying the contents of the CD-ROM on this scale is an infringement of copyright.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

In addition, this is an infringement of contract law: Chadwyck-Healey CD-ROMs are sold to libraries, and the library is bound by the end-user agreement mentioned above. A library user who systematically copies and publishes content from this CD-ROM has therefore caused a serious breach of the contract between the publisher and the library.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

Please delete this material within the next week.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

Matt Kibble, ProQuest Information and Learning, 4th October 06<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n