Re: [OT] Droit d'auteur vs. free software?
Scripsit tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net> writes:
> > Does that mean that you don't release your programs under a free
> > license, or that you never thought about the license you use, or that
> > you consider your choice of license to be severable from the artistic
> > statement you make with your code?
> It means that I think people have the right to use artistic works even
> in ways that disturb or violate the sensibilities of the author.
The "sensibilities of the author" has very little to do with the moral
rights, if anything at all. It is the objective attributes of the work
that are important.
> Turning my program into spaghetti code *would* violate its artistic
> merit, and *might* conceivably prejudice my reputation. But I
> *insist* that people should have this right.
Then your insistency is a valid part of your work's objective
attributes.
> What about Marcel Duchamp? Dammit, stop ignoring the question!
All I know about Marcel Duchamp is that he signed a piece of bathroom
furniture whose name in English I don't even know, and had it
exhibited as art. I don't see any connection between that and moral
rights.
> For Duchamp, "violating" the Mona Lisa was an integral part of the
> artistic statement being made.
Whatever Duchamp has done, I'm sure he did it more than 50 (70) years
after Leonardo died.
> Nope! For me, licensing is political, not artistic, and I do not put
> my works under a given license as a component of their artistic
> merit. (Others might, but I do not.)
Then you're doing political art. Nothing bad about that. :-)
> I want the right to release my software under a free software license,
> really, fully, without being forced to declare that licensing is part
> of the artistic merit of the work,
You don't have to declare it. Like copyright, it just exists
automatically.
--
Henning Makholm "Det er jo svært at vide noget når man ikke ved det, ikke?"
Reply to: