Re: query from Georg Greve of GNU about Debian's opinion of the FDL
On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 11:09:19AM +0200, Leonardo Boselli wrote:
> I second Georg's statement:
> I add some notes on italian author rigfhts law: the right to integrity
> of work is -except for some works- inalienable. So a license that
> would require "no invariant section" would be unforceable.
I think you may be confused about who is giving whom the license to do
what here.
The original author is granting a license to all to do things that are
not (in the absence of an explicit license to do so) usually permitted.
Nobody is requiring anything of the original author, and the original
author is the one who has the right to integrity of work.
We are suggesting that if we are to regard this author's work as free,
then he must license it in such a way that he *explicitly allows*
others to re-use parts of his work in various ways.
There would appear to be no reason why the original license could not
say that "you may only use elements of this work to create derivative
works (except as otherwise explicitly allowed by law) if you agree to
meet conditions X, Y and Z".
Conditions X, Y & Z are arbitrary, and could include stipulations that
you permit certain uses of your derivative work.
> But the same laws allow to get some part of a protected work to be
> included in another one, up to a limit of 10% of original work (for
> text) or 100 cm² (for graphics) just giving mention of the origin.
> This would be the case of the help popup ....
That's great, but:
* it might change
* it is almost certainly not consistently the case across the many
jurisdictions in which we would like to see Debian distributed.
We therefore prefer that an author is explicit in granting the
freedoms which we consider essential.
Cheers,
Nick
--
Nick Phillips -- nwp@lemon-computing.com
Be security conscious -- National defense is at stake.
Reply to: