Wouter Vanden Hove <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/debian-legal-200404/msg00031.html > > > "When any Licensor asks, all references to their name(s) must be purged > from the work. This restricts modification (DFSG 3)." > > This is an unalienable moral right in most of Europe. If this is DFSG > non-free, then Debian has a serious problem, because then is it > logically impossible to have a license that is compatible with the > DFSG and European Law at the same time.
Avoiding misrepresentation isn't the same as purging an author's name. I certainly don't know the details of European moral rights (I assume this is what you're referring to), but I suspect it's a lot more nuanced than the clause in the cc-by. For example, the cc-by does not distinguish between legitimate uses of the author's name (e.g., biographical, or criticism of the author's position) and those the license seeks to restrict (presumably, just mis-attribution). But regardless, the fact that something is enshrined in some country's law does not necessarily make that thing desirable, or DFSG free when encoded into a license. What about a license with US DMCA-style anti-circumvention provisions, for example? That would be non-free, even if in the US it would be a null-op. >> The by-sa license is likely to be non-free as well for the same >> reasons. > If people think that, we don't they express their opinion about it on > the relevant mailinglist, namely [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is probably a good idea. But I don't know that it would resolve the DFSG issues with the license, as there are other non-free provisions that I suspect CC would be reluctant to "fix". -- Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
