On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 12:34:50AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > Really, what does our user care about the author's original > intent over and above our intent in supplying the manual? > If they wanted the original, why are they downloading a derived > work? One could argue that an attribution should include a way > to locate the previous version and I doubt many would disagree. > I'm pretty sure everyone would agree that it would be OK to > require that changed sections aren't attributed to the original > author. It's certainly 'okay' if for no other reason than because it's a no-op. Deliberate misattribution is illegal everywhere that I'm aware of, although the details of implementation vary (for example, in the US, it's written into the copyright statute). Thusly writing such clauses into licenses should be discouraged, as they just generate confusion to no real effect; it wasn't legal to misattribute works to start with, and it has not somehow become *more* illegal by adding noise to a license. Certainly this is no excuse for making a work non-free. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature