Maurizio DE CECCO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, i see an other problem about the Source/Data distinction;
> in Video, the source is the whole set of the shooted material.
> (and in music, it can be the whole set of different takes done).
Only if the source, in software, means "all alternate versions and
scrapped ideas and subroutines we're saving for later," etc. If the
different takes and other shooted material were not publised as the
movie or music proper, than they are not part of the source.
> I write a song, where i express some ideas ("i hate spaghetti", for example).
> Than, somebody change the text, and express a new idea ("i love spaghetti").
> Than we got a song that still have my name on it, that say that i love spaghetti.
...
> As an author, i would like to distribute things that can be reused by
> others, but i think i cannot give up this kind of moral rights ...
To your relief, nobody can make it look like _you_ said something you
didn't say. This applied to software released under GPL or other OSI
approved license and it also applies to this license as it is
written. Plus there are libel and slander laws. If someone does
something like this to you they can end up in federal court. It is
illegal.
Also while anyone can make a modified work based on yours, they must
document their changes, and can't claim that you authored them (nor can
they claim that they authored what you did). Finally, they have to
retitle the work so that it can't be confused with yours.
This license makes no discriminations against who can access a
work. So if you didn't want a certain party to perform, exceute or
otherwise use a work, this would not be the license to use.
