I vaguely recall that we aren't actually supposed to use either "Project Gutenberg" or "En******* Br******" here. I could be wrong. Anybody?
The text itself is truly public domain, so using the text confers no requirements of any kind. "Encyclopaedia Britannica" is an active trademark and should not be mentioned (except when talking _about_ EB such as this sentence). It is acceptable, but unnecessary, to credit Project Gutenberg. It is probably best not to mention either, as that might be construed as an endorsement. --LDC
Well, the reason I asked was that someone (Bryce Harrington? I forget) said something along the lines of "we shouldn't use the Project Gutenberg name." I believe he found something to this effect on their website, or had communication from someone in the PG project.
This does not preclude us from using the words at all! That isn't how trademark works. It's just that we can't use their trademark in such a fashion as to suggest that they support or endorse this project or any changes that we might have (accidentally or on purpose) made to their texts.
I am on the mailing list for Project Gutenburg, and Michael Hart knows who I am, I suppose, from our joint Slashdot interview. So I will ask for more clarification. --Jimbo Wales
"You may distribute copies of this etext electronically, or by disk, book or any other medium if you either delete this "Small Print!" and all other references to Project Gutenberg,"
Technically, any speech given by anyone in the United States is copyrighted when it is given.
Aren't there some laws stating what data produced by the federal government are public domain?