David Goodman wrote:
My view is that any restriction of distribution that is not absolutely
and unquestionably legally necessary is a violation of the moral
rights of the contributors. We contributed to a free encyclopedia, in
the sense that the material could be used freely--and widely. We
2009/1/31 Geoffrey Plourde geo.p...@yahoo.com:
Sam;
I think that this is more of a Commons discussion. While I disagree with much
of what you say, I agree that this class of image, by its very nature,
requires more scrutiny. Serious thought should be given to a Nude Model
Policy of
David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
I didn't add (or are supposed to be). Now I'm wondering if I was
thinking of the personality rights tag.
Can you please give an example link to the tag you are talking about?
___
foundation-l mailing list
2009/1/31 Peter Jacobi pjacobi...@googlemail.com:
David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
I didn't add (or are supposed to be). Now I'm wondering if I was
thinking of the personality rights tag.
Can you please give an example link to the tag you are talking about?
This is the personality
2009/1/30 Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk:
2009/1/28 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
The new GFDL license only allows relicensing under CC-BY-SA of things
either published for the first time on the wiki or added to the wiki
before the new license was announced. Since this was
I am proud of my work, not of my name being on my work. that's narcissism.
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 6:33 PM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.yu wrote:
On Saturday 31 January 2009 11:23:33 Ray Saintonge wrote:
David Goodman wrote:
My view is that any restriction of distribution that is not
David Goodman wrote:
I am proud of my work, not of my name being on my work. that's narcissism.
It is a bit ego-centric to only care about how one self only
views ones work as mattering. It is wise and pragmatic
to acknowledge that not every individual thinks as one
thinks themselves. That
George Herbert wrote:
Used relative to copyright law, the term unambiguously means what Mike is
saying, the rights that Europe (and others) have assigned to actual authors
distinct from copyright owners etc.
The specific term as used in copyright law (as Mike says, a term of the
art in that
Ray Saintonge wrote:
David Goodman wrote:
My view is that any restriction of distribution that is not absolutely
and unquestionably legally necessary is a violation of the moral
rights of the contributors. We contributed to a free encyclopedia, in
the sense that the material could be
Anthony wrote:
Actually, the difference is quite relevant in a courtroom, especially when
dealing with constitutional issues. That's why I find it nearly impossible
to believe that Mike doesn't understand this. How in the world can you
defend people's constitutional rights if you think
Ray Saintonge wrote:
The only reason that moral rights is an issue is its inclusion in the
statutes of various countries. It mostly stems from an inflated
Napoleonic view of the Rights of Man that was meant to replace the
divine rights of kings. Common law countries have been loath to
11 matches
Mail list logo
