On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 20:47:32 +0100 Matthew Garrett wrote: > Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it> wrote: > > On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 00:45:08 +0100 Matthew Garrett wrote: > >> It seems entirely in line with the Chinese Dissident lala. > > > > If you disagree with my reasoning, as you seem to, I would like to > > hear a convincing rebuttal, rather than a sarcastic comment. > > > > Please show me where and why I am wrong: I would be happy to be > > persuaded that this is not a freeness issue. > > If it's important that Chinese Dissidents be able to release software > without putting their name all over it or telling anyone about it, It's important that someone can release software (original or modified) in a completely anonymous way. > it > would seem logical for them to be able to ensure that they be able to > demand people remove any credits that they may have accidently left on > a piece of software. That's useless. If the guy has accidentally disclosed his/her real identity in a credit left in a work released under a CC license, anyone can redistribute the unmodified work, thus contributing to spread the disclosed identity. Requiring that the problematic credit be purged from Adaptations and Collections does very little (if not nothing) to cure the identity disclosure in the unmodified Work. I don't think that this clause was designed with such a scenario in mind. I'm pretty sure that its goal is preventing that an ugly Adaptation reflects on the Original Author's reputation. As I already stated elsewhere, clarifying that the Adaptation is not the Original Work, but the result of modifications made by someone else, is IMO sufficient to prevent any negative impacts on the Original Author's reputation. -- But it is also tradition that times *must* and always do change, my friend. -- from _Coming to America_ ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpGKLflThOmK.pgp
Description: PGP signature