On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 11:09:19AM +0200, Leonardo Boselli wrote: > I second Georg's statement: > I add some notes on italian author rigfhts law: the right to integrity > of work is -except for some works- inalienable. So a license that > would require "no invariant section" would be unforceable.
I think you may be confused about who is giving whom the license to do what here. The original author is granting a license to all to do things that are not (in the absence of an explicit license to do so) usually permitted. Nobody is requiring anything of the original author, and the original author is the one who has the right to integrity of work. We are suggesting that if we are to regard this author's work as free, then he must license it in such a way that he *explicitly allows* others to re-use parts of his work in various ways. There would appear to be no reason why the original license could not say that "you may only use elements of this work to create derivative works (except as otherwise explicitly allowed by law) if you agree to meet conditions X, Y and Z". Conditions X, Y & Z are arbitrary, and could include stipulations that you permit certain uses of your derivative work. > But the same laws allow to get some part of a protected work to be > included in another one, up to a limit of 10% of original work (for > text) or 100 cm² (for graphics) just giving mention of the origin. > This would be the case of the help popup .... That's great, but: * it might change * it is almost certainly not consistently the case across the many jurisdictions in which we would like to see Debian distributed. We therefore prefer that an author is explicit in granting the freedoms which we consider essential. Cheers, Nick -- Nick Phillips -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Be security conscious -- National defense is at stake.
