Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 01:16:13 +0000 MJ Ray wrote: > > "Removing credit when requested to do so" is not an issue > > outlined in Evan Prodromou's summary. The problem was having > > to remove *all* references to the author (thereby creating > > a possible termination clause, significantly restricting > > modification of some works and so on), rather than credits. > > In my view, "Removing credit when requested to do so" is an > improved-but-not-really-solved version of the "Removing references" > issue. This is what I meant.
I see it as significantly different. If it was all references, you could be effectively stopped from using their work in a biography of the author or a project history, for example. It also combined awkwardly with other requirements, IIRC. > > For a Derivative Work, I'm pretty sure that the law about false > > attribution allows the original author to demand they not be > > credited with it. This requirement seems like a no-op included > > to make the attribution clause consistent with the law. > > Could you please provide a pointer to the relevant articles of the > copyright (or author's right) law you're referring to? > I wasn't able to find such a right from a quick review of the Italian > Author's Right Law (I mainly searched among moral rights...). > Are you thinking about UK Copyright Law, perhaps? Or US Copyright Law? UK Law, as this licence is for the law of Scotland. I think http://www.jenkins-ip.com/patlaw/cdpa1.htm#s84 is the legislation and a credit is attribution. > Now I'm puzzled: in the pornographic image example, does "This image is > based on the desk image created by Bob" qualify as crediting Bob? > I think it does, and at the same time corresponds to claiming that the > derived image is based on the original image (which is true and should > be allowed to be said, I think). I think it depends where and how "based on the desk image created by Bob" is stated. Your porno image may have other problems: I can't remember if that is derogatory treatment. > > The "other" problem is absent, so it's a fairly small lawyerbomb, > > rather than a clear failure to follow any guideline. > > It could be interpreted in various ways, some of which are non-free. > We've always said we must be conservative and assume the worst > interpretation: that's what I did and it resulted in considering this > clause a violation of the DFSG... I don't recall ever agreeing that. I think I usually note the lawyerbomb and advise checking each work in such cases. Of course, I'd agree works under such a licence don't necessarily follow the DFSG, but I think we have other licences like that, especially ones with optional freedom-breakers. Hope that explains, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
