Re: better licence for fosdem, debconf, .., videos...

[MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop>]

Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it>
> On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 01:45:55 +0000 MJ Ray wrote:
> > 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?

I think such a credit could be inaccurate or false attribution
in some circumstances.

> > 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?

Yes, it is. If you have time for nothing else, read paragraphs
20, 22 and 48-53 for the summary of that 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?

The only case obvious to me where upstream could be credited accurately
with your derivative work is when you are the upstream.

> 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?

I believe so. It's a noop in the law of the licence. If you'd
like to present arguments that misattribution must be allowed
for meeting the DFSG, I wish you luck and won't comment further!
Where do you want to draw that line?
-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct