Michael Stutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Maurizio DE CECCO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I write a song, where i express some ideas ("i hate spaghetti", for example).
> > Than, somebody change the text, and express a new idea ("i love spaghetti").
> > Than we got a song that still have my name on it, that say that i love spaghetti.
> ...
> > As an author, i would like to distribute things that can be reused by
> > others, but i think i cannot give up this kind of moral rights ...
>
> To your relief, nobody can make it look like _you_ said something you
> didn't say. This applied to software released under GPL or other OSI
> approved license and it also applies to this license as it is
> written.
Yes, but you don't delete a name from the list of people worked
on a project, also if the project now have a different direction.
> Plus there are libel and slander laws. If someone does
> something like this to you they can end up in federal court. It is
> illegal.
Sorry, i don't know these laws :-< .. can you elaborate ?
My question is, are you sure that putting a text under a explicit licence
don't grant the rights to do that ?
> Also while anyone can make a modified work based on yours, they must
> document their changes, and can't claim that you authored them (nor can
> they claim that they authored what you did). Finally, they have to
> retitle the work so that it can't be confused with yours.
This is why i have some doubt that software like licences well apply
to text; since we are talking politics, and not technics, things are
a little bit less clearly defined; i can modify a text, document
the fact that i modified it, include the documentation of the changes,
and still leave a lot of confusion in the reader about which ideas
are mine and which ideas are of the original author; for example,
i can include the diffs of the latex sources of the two version
of a book, and almost no reader will understand them.
The fact itself that i need to keep the original copyright and
and to add mine can be represent a problem for the original author,
in some case.
What i mean is that concepts that cover very well a technical, byte by
byte, reality don't cover as completely an abstract domains like ideas
paternity ...
Note that i am not against this kind of licences for text, i am just
wondering which kind of consequences this can have.
As long as we speak of open licences for technical documentation
is easy, it is a lot more complex when we discuss about art (spoken
art).
> This license makes no discriminations against who can access a
> work. So if you didn't want a certain party to perform, exceute or
> otherwise use a work, this would not be the license to use.
This is not the point; the point is that for the european laws,
the moral rights of an author *cannot be* given up; whatever licence
i use, or fee i receive, european laws protect my right to stop
an use of my work that i don't like, *even* i formally give
up this right with a licence.
Don't know if this is right or not, but it is the (local) reality.
Maurizio
--
Maurizio De Cecco
MandrakeSoft http://www.mandrakesoft.com/
