> From: Al > Attribution is a good thing to protect. I believe an attribution > requirement is an acceptable restriction on use. Copyleft (sharealike) > is a good thing to protect, as well.
TRUTH in attribution is a good thing to protect. Truth is socially valued. It adds value to art. It is not a burden. It is not considered an unacceptable restriction except by fraudsters. However, compulsory attribution is a burden, and can remove value if it impedes use. There are cases where it has been recognised and termed an 'obnoxious requirement' in the past. > If there is no serious disagreement about this (I don't expect any) we > can assume a copyright "nullification" to leave intact optional > enforcement of attribution and/or copyleft requirements. I have a serious disagreement about enforcement of attribution. However, I wholly support enforcement against misattribution. And misattribution can be explicit or implicit. > With this amendment on copyright "nullification," a nullification is > sufficient to sustain all these great projects. There is absolutely no reason why abolishing copyright should consequently permit authors to have cart blanche to plagiarise each others' works at will. _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
