Re: [OT] Droit d'auteur vs. free software? (Was: query from Georg Greve of GNU about Debian's opinion of the FDL
* Anthony DeRobertis <firstname.lastname@example.org> [030501 12:56]:
> On Wed, 2003-04-30 at 12:37, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > sub 2. The work must not be changed or made available to the public
> > in a way or in a context that violates the author's literary or
> > artistic reputation or character.
> So, I assume that if a work which has artistic or literary value is
> licensed under the GPL, version 2, people living outside common-law
> countries can't modify and distribute because of:
> 7. [...] If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously
> your obligations under this License and any other pertinent
> obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the
> Program at all.
I cannot see the problem here. Even if the quoted "sub 2" can be
applied, it may only disallow you making something available to
the public (i.e. some forms of distributing it).
The quoted "point 7" would only apply, if one wasn't allowed to
distribute copies with source and allowing the receiver everything
allowed by GPL. (As this are the mentioned obligations mentioned in
> /me wonders if there are more countries besides his own that need to be
> no longer considered part of the free world. :-D
Even extreme legislations for author's rights does not reduce the ability
to create free software (though those rights might only performed in
other countries), as long as law does not demand, that people have to
encode laws in contracts they make. (Things like "You are not
allowed to use this software to commit crimes". And I guess such
requirements will not exist in any sane (i.e. not 'common')
jurisdisction. After all, why should people be forced to forbid things
already forbid by law?)
Bernhard R. Link
Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing
an editor and a MTA.