On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 01:45:55 +0000 MJ Ray wrote: > Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...] > > It speaks about "false attribution": I cannot imagine how stating > > "This image is based on the desk image created by Bob" could be > > considered as false attribution... > > I repeat: I think it depends where and how "based on the desk image > created by Bob" is stated.
I can't imagine where or how it could become false: as a matter of fact, the pornographic image is really "based on the desk image created by Bob"... > > Further: a lot of emphasis is put on whether you are trying to credit > Bob with a hand in your work. That is, whether it is a credit. If it is a credit, it's not an inaccurate or false one, AFAICT. If it is not a credit, the law doesn't forbid me to state a (true) fact. Or am I wrong? > See > http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/1998/345.html if you want > more explanation of both legislation and case law. I tried to find the time to read that, but miserably failed. Sorry. A pretty short summary? > > I think it's fair that you can't credit upstream with your derivative > or collective if they don't want you to. I'm not so sure: even if the credit is accurate and corresponds to reality? As a matter of courtesy, I'm of course ready to purge any credit that upstream doesn't like. But is it DFSG-free to *require* me to do so upon request, as a condition for getting all the permissions granted by the license? -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) ...................................................................... Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
pgpRPEyAFDpfY.pgp
Description: PGP signature
