Quote:
Originally Posted by Jovvi
Yes, legally but the argument was that it was morally and etically wrong to make later changes, and then I think you have to chose, either it is wrong for anyone other than the original author to edit the text, or it is free for everyone to do so (the copyright holder when its under copyright and anyone if it has past to the public domain).
|
You have excluded the middle. Usually I'm opposed to such fallacies but in this case I fall firmly on the DON'T CHANGE WHAT THE AUTHOR WROTE side of the fence. That goes for the copyright holder as well, unless said holder be the author.
I think my ground is firm; a rock really. You cannot say the work is 'by [insert author] if in fact it is not.
The exception would be in translation from one language to another with the translator's name front and center under that of the author (there are translators I follow!), but that does not extend to 'updating the language' for modern sensibilities; certainly not to 'updating the mores'. I find that hubris hideous.
I'm perfectly okay with changing the typesetters work. He had far too many liquid lunches anyway. And his HTML sucked.