On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 03:30:28AM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote: > On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, Joe Moore wrote: > JM>> The point is, I think that there are circumstances where having > JM>> invariant sections are _necessary_. When I am writing a report with a > JM>> conclusion that contains my very personal opinion, I as the author do > JM>> not want anybody to change that section, write anything into it that I > JM>> do not agree with. The readers of that modified version will think it > JM>> is my opinion they are reading thouhg it is not and may be even > JM>> contrary to mine. What does that mean? When I am free to say what I > JM>> want (freedom of speech, one of our highest goals!) I do want to keep > JM>> to my words and do not want anybody to put words in my mouth I would > JM>> never say. > JM>The trouble with that example is that the invariant section does > JM>_not_ protect your opinion. > ?aybe. Maybe (I cannot speak for anyone else, but it seems > for me that...) invariant section protect the users (particularly, > creators of derivative works) of document from an accusation in the > infringement of attribution rights. Not a perfect protection, but > better than nothing. > This issue (personal, or "moral", author's rights) is not > popular in USA and do not exist in USA for a software. But for > documentation it exist even in USA. No, US law does not recognize the concept of a creator's "moral rights" with respect to *any* work, software or not. We have laws against slander and libel, but this is not the same thing -- which is why several of us keep repeating that one does not have to build protection against defamation into one's copyright license. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpnPCtCzfdmX.pgp
Description: PGP signature