On Tue, 2003-05-13 at 02:41, Branden Robinson wrote: > Colin Watson helpfully provided this information in a recent mail: > 4. The location of the original unmodified document be > identified. > I feel that this clause might be problematic in a way that clauses 1, 2, > and 3 would not be, in that the information in 1, 2, and 3 cannot become > false over time. First, it doesn't have to be a network location. So I think we could distribute as original + patches; the location we'd point to would be the .orig file in the pool. > 5) applicable, non-redundant disclaimers of endorsement  That's not compelled speech --- I can always remove it (and often have to, if I change the document) if I disapprove of it. > I recommend dropping this clause. > > 5. The original author's (or authors') name(s) may not be used > to assert or imply endorsement of the resulting document > without the original author's (or authors') permission. I don't think it's so critical it be dropped; I think it just restates what the law already does. If modified a work to include hateful propaganda, and didn't make it clear that is not the original author's opinion, I'd be in trouble for defamation. E.g., (36pt) Some Document [ illustration, blank space, whatever ] (16pt) by J. Hacker (9pt) with modifications by others and then putting all those others in the full copyright statement in 8pt type is likely to still be defamation. > BECAUSE THE CONTENT OF THE WORK IS FREELY MODIFIABLE BY ALL THIRD > PARTIES, THERE IS NO WARRANTY THAT ANY REPRESENTATIONS MADE WITH IN ARE > MADE BY, ON BEHALF OF, OR WITH THE CONSENT OF THE AUTHOR(S) OR COPYRIGHT > HOLDER(S). ANY STATEMENTS MADE WITHIN THE WORK ARE NOT NECESSARILY > HELD, SHARED, OR ENDORSED BY THE AUTHOR(S) OR COPYRIGHT HOLDER(S). Not many end-users of a published book will read that. It won't much save someone's reputation. The only way this works is if its very close to the places where the authors' names are mentioned.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part