[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?

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

Reply to: