Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Peter S Galbraith wrote: > > Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > If I transfer my copyright, I can not stop you from harming > > > my reputation. That's why the law has the extra provision that > > > helps me protect my moral rights. > > > > If I transfer my copyright to you, you can't (IMHO) damage my reputation > > by doing silly things to my work. You can damage _your_ reputation by > > doing that. > > People will think you made the silly modifications, and so > your reputation is harmed. I am not required by law to say > I modified the work if I bought the copyright from you.
Okay. But in the case of free software, the author _still_ does hold the copyright. So the silly derived works must be marked as modified (following the license). What extra protection is required? > > This is _not_ a legal argument. It's a common sense argument. > > Unfortunately some laws don't make sense. > > Indeed. So I guess the question is, do you want to pay > any attention to laws that do not make sense? Sure. > Are you > worried about the (remote) possibility of free software > authors accusing people of violating their moral rights > to stop certain modifications? If it applies to software, sure. But you won't find me arguing that the extra protection is needed or good, as others have in this forum. Peter
