On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > But it is not a real problem. Under the "droit d'auteur", the author's > right over *software* is quite limited
Is this the basic point by which "moral rights" do not prevent software from being free? They're not generally applied to software? So, for the right to prevent "mutilation" of a work, which an author has over her book, but not over her software: What if the software is published as a book? What if the book is published as software (either as an e-book or by using characters and storyline in a computer game)? What about book-like content (help files, tutorials, etc) in software? [back to the topic of the GFDL and free documentation] Over and above the problems in distinguishing types of work, why would I call a license which attempts to impose this system on me if I don't live in such a place "free"? If recognition of moral rights is a requirement for a free documentation license, I propose the GPL be used with the notation that "none of these terms is intended to infringe those rights over which an author cannot grant permissions". Is this sufficient to cover droit d'auteur jurisdictions without limiting the right to modify in common-law areas? -- Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.dagon.net/>
