On 1 May 2003, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, Henning Makholm wrote: > > > > And I don't think that the author of a piece of software has any > > > "literary or artistic reputation or character" connected with it. > > > You don't? I think that artistic reputation is among the common reasons > > for releasing free software. It seems unlikely that Linus Torvalds's > > reputation is completely unrelated to software he's written. > > It is not an artistic reputation.
Ooooh, I'd be mighty careful starting *that* little flamewar. Some people consider their programming to be art; I've seen plenty of people whose code certainly has no hallmarks of scientific method. Consider also the way some programmers react when their code is criticised - like many artists get defensive about their works... Programming, writing a novel, and painting a picture are all, at their core, creative endeavours. Perhaps "moral rights" in the EU specifically discount writing software as an artistic endeavour (you may even have mentioned it and I missed it). If "moral rights" do this, then you are perfectly correct, and I'll keep quiet on the matter... > > > Anyway, by voluntarily releasing his work under a free license, the > > > author unmistakenly states that his literary or artistic reputation > > > cannot be considered violated by any form of derived work. > > > Except he cannot actually grant this blanket permission under sub 3. > > He cannot grant a permission to violate. But since no violation is > possible, that does not matter. Can no violation take place because software is treated differently under "moral rights" than other creative endeavours? -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- #include <disclaimer.h> Matthew Palmer, Geek In Residence http://ieee.uow.edu.au/~mjp16
