Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 01:45:55 +0000 MJ Ray wrote: > > Further: a lot of emphasis is put on whether you are trying to credit > > Bob with a hand in your work. That is, whether it is a credit. > > If it is a credit, it's not an inaccurate or false one, AFAICT. > If it is not a credit, the law doesn't forbid me to state a (true) fact. > > Or am I wrong?
I think such a credit could be inaccurate or false attribution in some circumstances. > > See > > http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/1998/345.html if you want > > more explanation of both legislation and case law. > > I tried to find the time to read that, but miserably failed. > Sorry. > > A pretty short summary? Yes, it is. If you have time for nothing else, read paragraphs 20, 22 and 48-53 for the summary of that summary. > > I think it's fair that you can't credit upstream with your derivative > > or collective if they don't want you to. > > I'm not so sure: even if the credit is accurate and corresponds to > reality? The only case obvious to me where upstream could be credited accurately with your derivative work is when you are the upstream. > As a matter of courtesy, I'm of course ready to purge any credit that > upstream doesn't like. > But is it DFSG-free to *require* me to do so upon request, as a > condition for getting all the permissions granted by the license? I believe so. It's a noop in the law of the licence. If you'd like to present arguments that misattribution must be allowed for meeting the DFSG, I wish you luck and won't comment further! Where do you want to draw that line? -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]