On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 01:45:55 +0000 MJ Ray wrote:
> Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it> [...]
> > It speaks about "false attribution": I cannot imagine how stating
> > "This image is based on the desk image created by Bob" could be
> > considered as false attribution...
>
> I repeat: I think it depends where and how "based on the desk image
> created by Bob" is stated.
I can't imagine where or how it could become false: as a matter of fact,
the pornographic image is really "based on the desk image created by
Bob"...
>
> Further: a lot of emphasis is put on whether you are trying to credit
> Bob with a hand in your work. That is, whether it is a credit.
If it is a credit, it's not an inaccurate or false one, AFAICT.
If it is not a credit, the law doesn't forbid me to state a (true) fact.
Or am I wrong?
> See
> http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/1998/345.html if you want
> more explanation of both legislation and case law.
I tried to find the time to read that, but miserably failed.
Sorry.
A pretty short summary?
>
> I think it's fair that you can't credit upstream with your derivative
> or collective if they don't want you to.
I'm not so sure: even if the credit is accurate and corresponds to
reality?
As a matter of courtesy, I'm of course ready to purge any credit that
upstream doesn't like.
But is it DFSG-free to *require* me to do so upon request, as a
condition for getting all the permissions granted by the license?
--
:-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-)
......................................................................
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpv2X2UMHsPw.pgp
Description: PGP signature