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

Re: Prefered License for forums content

Wouter Vanden Hove <wouter.vanden.hove@pandora.be> writes:

>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/debian-legal-200404/msg00031.html
> "When any Licensor asks, all references to their name(s) must be purged
>    from the work.  This restricts modification (DFSG 3)."
> This is an unalienable moral right in most of Europe. If this is DFSG
> non-free, then Debian has a serious problem, because then is it
> logically impossible to have a license that is compatible with the
> DFSG and European Law at the same time.

Avoiding misrepresentation isn't the same as purging an author's name.
I certainly don't know the details of European moral rights (I assume
this is what you're referring to), but I suspect it's a lot more nuanced
than the clause in the cc-by.  For example, the cc-by does not
distinguish between legitimate uses of the author's name (e.g.,
biographical, or criticism of the author's position) and those the
license seeks to restrict (presumably, just mis-attribution).

But regardless, the fact that something is enshrined in some country's
law does not necessarily make that thing desirable, or DFSG free when
encoded into a license.  What about a license with US DMCA-style
anti-circumvention provisions, for example?  That would be non-free,
even if in the US it would be a null-op.

>> The by-sa license is likely to be non-free as well for the same
>> reasons.

> If people think that, we don't they express their opinion about it on
> the relevant mailinglist, namely cc-licenses@lists.ibiblio.org?

This is probably a good idea.  But I don't know that it would resolve
the DFSG issues with the license, as there are other non-free provisions
that I suspect CC would be reluctant to "fix".

Jeremy Hankins <nowan@nowan.org>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333  9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03

Reply to: