--- Kai Henningsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] からのメッ
セージ：
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathanael Nerode) wrote on
19.05.03 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
How different are things really on the Continent?
Is *everthing* codified?
[...]
The important point being drawn out here is that the
common law (U.S. U.K. et
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathanael Nerode) wrote on 19.05.03 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
How different are things really on the Continent? Is *everthing* codified?
Perhaps it is; I believe the French (Napoleonic Code) system requires
*every* ruling to be based on a specific article of the code.
Please
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathanael Nerode) wrote on 03.05.03 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Basically, it's a free speech issue. The concept that authors and their
heirs have inherent rights of control over their writings, in eternity
(which is the basic concept of the system) is effectively in opposition
Kai Henningsen said:
Which parts of Europe are we talking about here?
Those with French-style moral rights, I guess.
[Discussion of German copyright/moral rights basis snipped]
So German law seems very good on this point. :-)
[Incidentally, I believe these points are substantially unchanged
On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 11:00:48AM -0400,
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 15 lines which said:
Since there's been a lot of talk about the difficulty in making a
distinction between software and non-software, do you know how the law
you're referring to makes this
--- Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] からのメッセ
ージ：
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
This approach means that authors will be forced to
accept
any kind of modifications, even those that
directly go against
their artistic wishes. The US system thinks this
is OK
--- Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] からのメッセ
ージ：
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 07:45:51PM +0200, Arnoud
Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
The motivation for making them unrevokable is
to prevent
authors from
For Duchamp, violating the Mona Lisa was an integral part of the
artistic statement being made.
Whatever Duchamp has done, I'm sure he did it more than 50 (70) years
after Leonardo died.
He drew mustaches on a photograph of the painting, I think, and
exposed it.
He could show his
Scripsit Alessandro Rubini [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Whatever Duchamp has done, I'm sure he did it more than 50 (70) years
after Leonardo died.
He drew mustaches on a photograph of the painting, I think, and
exposed it.
I'm fairly certain that would fall under the right to quote. (Most
European
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 04:08:33PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
What about Marcel Duchamp? Dammit, stop ignoring the question! For
Duchamp, violating the Mona Lisa was an integral part of the
artistic statement being made. Does that not count? Address the
case. So far it merely
On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 08:21:18PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In the US, I could mutilate your work, but I couldn't pass it off as
yours (that would be misrepresentation, possibly fraud). If you were
alive, I couldn't distort it to
On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 04:25:34PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Branden mentioned:
In the U.K., truth is not a defense to libel. It's my understanding
that it *is* a defense in the U.S.
In fact, I believe the burden of proof in the US is on the plaintiff to
*prove* that the alleged
On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 04:40:01PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Yes, which is why European copyright law is fundamentally opposed to
free speech.
There isn't harmony among all European jurisdictions in matters of
copyright, so this statement seems overbroad.
This basis for copyright is
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen)
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Does this clear implication extend to documentation released
under a Free licence? Does this clear implication extend to
literary, visual arts, or audio works released under a Free license?
I'd say
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No he can't. His placing Emacs under a free license, aside from his
numerous writings about software freedom, clearly imply that his works
have no intrinsic artistic character that could possibly be
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No he can't. His placing Emacs under a free license, aside from his
numerous writings about software freedom, clearly imply that his works
have no
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
This is horrid. I believe quite firmly that my work has an intrinsic
artistic character.
Sure. But do you believe that the intrinsic artistic
* Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] [030518 22:18]:
Why do you think the concept is bogus? In principle I think it's
a good idea to have something that prevents others from mutilating
my work. The implementation sucks greatly though.
It's bogus because it impinges on free speech and gives
Henning Makholm said:
Scripsit Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RMS could use his 'moral rights' to prevent someone from
distributing a version of Emacs which could read and write Microsoft
Word files (file format being reverse-engineered).
No he can't. His placing Emacs under a free
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm said:
No he can't. His placing Emacs under a free license, aside from his
numerous writings about software freedom, clearly imply that his works
have no intrinsic artistic character that could possibly be violated by
any third-party
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No he can't. His placing Emacs under a free license, aside from his
numerous writings about software freedom, clearly imply that his works
have no intrinsic artistic character that could possibly be violated
by any third-party modification.
This is
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Does this clear implication extend to documentation released
under a Free licence? Does this clear implication extend to
literary, visual arts, or audio works released under a Free license?
I'd say yes, *if* the author *voluntarily* made the
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RMS could use his 'moral rights' to prevent someone from
distributing a version of Emacs which could read and write Microsoft
Word files (file format being reverse-engineered).
No he can't. His placing
Please note, that this could also played backward. Why should libel
or slander be extended to the work of the authors?
Huh? It's not being extended at all. There's no right of the *work*.
It's simply the right of the *author* not to be defamed. You can do
whatever you want with the work if
Arnoud Galatus Engelfriet said:
Why do you think the concept is bogus? In principle I think it's
a good idea to have something that prevents others from mutilating
my work. The implementation sucks greatly though.
It's bogus because it impinges on free speech and gives heirs of the
dead rights
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I transfer my copyright, I can not stop you from harming
my reputation. That's why the law has the extra provision that
helps me protect my moral rights.
No. Under US law, you can stop me from harming your reputation under
libel, slander,
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I suppose maybe Theo de Raadt could use his moral rights
against people adding buffer overflows to his code, but
otherwise it might be difficult to come up with this type
of claim. You have to argue something that shows how your
reputation is
Branden mentioned:
In the U.K., truth is not a defense to libel. It's my understanding
that it *is* a defense in the U.S.
In fact, I believe the burden of proof in the US is on the plaintiff to
*prove* that the alleged 'libel' is false.
So, when an American sues for libel in the U.K., it's a
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I'm not sure it's entirely the right time, but the basic
principle behind European copyright law is that you have
by definition certain rights. Not just to promote progress,
but simply because you made the work. It's your intellectual
property.
Scripsit Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RMS could use his 'moral rights' to prevent someone from
distributing a version of Emacs which could read and write Microsoft
Word files (file format being reverse-engineered).
No he can't. His placing Emacs under a free license, aside from his
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In the US, I could mutilate your work, but I couldn't pass it off as
yours (that would be misrepresentation, possibly fraud). If you were
alive, I couldn't distort it to give you a bad reputation: that
would be libel or slander, depending. (Dead
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Branden mentioned:
In the U.K., truth is not a defense to libel. It's my understanding
that it *is* a defense in the U.S.
In fact, I believe the burden of proof in the US is on the plaintiff to
*prove* that the alleged 'libel' is false.
Um,
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This approach means that authors will be forced to accept
any kind of modifications, even those that directly go against
their artistic wishes. The US system thinks this is OK since
you got paid. The European system thinks this is not OK.
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
People will think you made the silly modifications, and so
your reputation is harmed. I am not required by law to say
I modified the work if I bought the copyright from you.
But that's true whether I start with your work at all. I can make
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Possible, unless I'm so famous that people would recognize
the painting as being from me anyway. Or the painting has
been on display as being mine for some time. Or whatever.
What about Marcel Duchamp? Was his work morally reprehensible?
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 07:45:51PM +0200, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
The motivation for making them unrevokable is to prevent
authors from being forced to accept unconditional surrender
of their works.
On Sat, May 17, 2003 at 03:06:47PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG said:
= Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
=
= This approach means that authors will be forced to accept
= any kind of modifications, even those that directly go against
= their artistic wishes. The US system
(My idea in participating in these debates is to provide
some areas to research assertions. I will not express a
legal opinion on the fact specific issues. I'm including
citations and snippets for people's reference, not to be
pedandic. People have been saying that's very helpful but
let me
--- Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] からのメッセ
ージ：
On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 01:48:47AM -0500, Branden
Robinson wrote:
On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 01:12:10PM -0500, Steve
Langasek wrote:
There are already libel and slander laws to
prevent damaging a
person's reputation through falsehoods.
--- Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] から
のメッセージ：
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
As I already explained several days ago, the right
to prevent
modifications does NOT exist for SOFTWARE.
Author's rights on SOFTWARE
are quite limited, even in Europe.
Moral rights are excluded for
On Tue, 13 May 2003, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
This approach means that authors will be forced to accept
any kind of modifications, even those that directly go against
their artistic wishes. The US system thinks this is OK since
you got paid. The European system thinks this is
--- James Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] からのメッセー
ジ：
--- Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED]
から
のメッセージ：
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
As I already explained several days ago, the
right
to prevent
modifications does NOT exist for SOFTWARE.
Moral rights are excluded for software?
On Mon, 12 May 2003 14:50:28 -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 07:45:51PM +0200, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
The motivation for making them unrevokable is to prevent
authors from being forced to accept unconditional surrender
of their works. Then they could be made
On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 01:12:10PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
There are already libel and slander laws to prevent damaging a
person's reputation through falsehoods.
In the U.K., truth is not a defense to libel. It's my understanding
that it *is* a defense in the U.S.
So, when an American
On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 09:05:59AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Marcel Duchamp, is he no longer the hero of French artists?
Given that our French participants keep ignoring this question from you,
I guess the answer is yes, he is no longer the hero of French artists.
Perhaps he has been
On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 02:50:28PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
That's ludicrous. Rights are not preserved by revoking other rights.
Sure they are. My right to breathe clean air, drink clean water, not be
bathed in gamma radiation, etc., is preserved by revoking the rights of
U.S. corporations
Dylan Thurston [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Whatever you may think of the specific merits of the droit d'auteur
system, please bear in mind that every legal system gives you rights
you cannot barter away. For instance, no modern legal system lets you
sell yourself into slavery, and I think that that
On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 07:47:12PM +0200,
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 14 lines which said:
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
As I already explained several days ago, the right to prevent
modifications does NOT exist for SOFTWARE. Author's rights on SOFTWARE
On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 01:48:47AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 01:12:10PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
There are already libel and slander laws to prevent damaging a
person's reputation through falsehoods.
In the U.K., truth is not a defense to libel. It's my
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 07:45:51PM +0200, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
If I transfer my copyright, I can not stop you from harming
my reputation.
No? What can the new copyright holder do to harm your reputation that
you aren't protected from under other laws?
Peter S Galbraith wrote:
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I transfer my copyright, I can not stop you from harming
my reputation. That's why the law has the extra provision that
helps me protect my moral rights.
If I transfer my copyright to you, you can't (IMHO)
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 07:45:51PM +0200, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
The motivation for making them unrevokable is to prevent
authors from being forced to accept unconditional surrender
of their works. Then they could be made to look like total
So the only way
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
So what you do to works I created could harm my reputation.
I could make a silly modificaton to your painting and avoid mentioning
that you created the original. This wouldn't harm your reputation.
Alternatively I could create a totally original
Peter S Galbraith wrote:
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
People will think you made the silly modifications, and so
your reputation is harmed. I am not required by law to say
I modified the work if I bought the copyright from you.
Okay. But in the case of free
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
So what you do to works I created could harm my reputation.
I could make a silly modificaton to your painting and avoid mentioning
that you created the original. This wouldn't harm your reputation.
Possible, unless
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Peter S Galbraith wrote:
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
People will think you made the silly modifications, and so
your reputation is harmed. I am not required by law to say
I modified the work if I bought the
* Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] [030512 22:50]:
Natural is a quite common description for something seen as so
evident, that it needs no justification. So one can argue, if it
is a natural right, but after I saw people pretending a right to
own weapons this one is not funny at all.
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As far as I know, the heirs must follow the author's intentions
when applying the inherited moral right. They cannot decide
for themselves whether *they* like the change, they must guess
whether the now
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Then they're not doing what the law says they must. Not much
you can do about that, other than hoping the judge will see
it differently.
The copyright laws in the US do *not* say that the heirs are
restricted to what the author wants. But
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
In my example case, the heirs *think* they are doing what the author
wants, but they are wrong, because the author is not as bigoted as
they are.
Isn't that always a problem when you can't ask the person himself
anymore?
Not much you can do about that?
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not much you can do about that? Hardly--you could, for example,
*not have the whole bogus concept in the first place*.
Why do you think the concept is bogus? In principle I think it's
a good idea to have something that prevents others
I understand that Adolf Hitler's copyright in Mein Kampf was
acquired by the state of Bavaria, who use it for suppressing the book.
If and when the copyright expires (2015 if the duration is not further
extended; in many EU countries copyright was extended from 50 to 70
years in 1995, with the
On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 02:25:05AM -0700,
Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 111 lines which said:
Since changing the color of curtains violates the rights of an
architect, it's hard to imagine any significant change to any piece of
software that would not wreak
Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As I already explained several days ago, the right to prevent
modifications does NOT exist for SOFTWARE. Author's rights on SOFTWARE
are quite limited, even in Europe.
Right, that's why this is all OT. ;)
What I'm saying is why authors' rights
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
years in 1995, with the effect that Mein Kampf was out of copyright
for 3 months before disappearing for another 20 years) it will be
interesting to see whether Bavaria tries to use moral rights to
further suppress the book, arguing that in this day and age Adolf
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why do you think the concept is bogus? In principle I think it's
a good idea to have something that prevents others from mutilating
my work. The implementation sucks greatly though.
We already have that
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
As I already explained several days ago, the right to prevent
modifications does NOT exist for SOFTWARE. Author's rights on SOFTWARE
are quite limited, even in Europe.
Moral rights are excluded for software? Can you please give
me a citation for that? As far as I
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why do you think the concept is bogus? In principle I think it's
a good idea to have something that prevents others from mutilating
my work. The
On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 07:45:51PM +0200, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
The motivation for making them unrevokable is to prevent
authors from being forced to accept unconditional surrender
of their works. Then they could be made to look like total
So the only way to prevent this is to
* Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] [030512 20:42]:
That's why the law has the extra provision that helps me protect my
moral rights.
It has a superfluous provision that unnecessarily restricts the author's
freedom to form contracts. It is as idiotic and misguided as the
attempts to
* Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] [030512 19:52]:
As I already explained several days ago, the right to prevent
modifications does NOT exist for SOFTWARE. Author's rights on SOFTWARE
are quite limited, even in Europe.
Moral rights are excluded for software? Can you please
On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 09:13:23PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
It's assumed to be a right. Basic thing about rights (at least in German
law, as far as I understand it) is that rights cannot be transfered.
You can not tranfer your right to vote, your right to not be hurt nor
any other
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Note that the distortion or mutilation has to hurt the
honor or reputation of the author. Here in the Netherlands
this is the case if the owner of a house decides to put up
new blinds in a color the architect
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
As I read the law, it says that there are some rights over the work
which the artist *cannot* renounce. You would have it that if the
artist uses a certain form of license, the rights have been
effectively renounced. If that were a correct interpretation, then
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
People that pass by the house do not know whether the blinds
were the architect's design or not. They might remember that
the house was designed by him, and then conclude that he was
very stupid for putting those ugly blinds on the house.
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As far as I know, the heirs must follow the author's intentions
when applying the inherited moral right. They cannot decide
for themselves whether *they* like the change, they must guess
whether the now deceased author would have liked it.
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Did you read the exact wording I posted? It very specifically protects
exactly the author's intention. Nothing more.
What if the author's intention is that anyone do whatever they want
with the
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
He cannot do that. But his action of releasing the work under a free
license will have the coincidental effect that it becomes impossible
to violate the artistic integrity of the work, because the integrity
consists exactly in the work being free.
I'm not
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The heirs' judgement controls nothing at all. The court's does, of
course, but the unless the court purposefully misunderstands the
intent of the law and the author's intention [1] it will of course
rule in favor of the author's explicit wishes.
Scripsit Thomas Bushnell, BSG
The whole European concept of author's rights makes me sick;
If you insist on misunderstanding the concept in the face of sevral
attempts to explain to you that you're misunderstanding it, then it is
certainly your democratic right to let your own delusions about a
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit Thomas Bushnell, BSG
The whole European concept of author's rights makes me sick;
If you insist on misunderstanding the concept in the face of sevral
attempts to explain to you that you're misunderstanding it, then it is
certainly your
Scripsit Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED]
However, even if it did, what about the droit repentir that was
mentioned earlier?
I don't know about that. It is certainly not part of Danish law.
--
Henning Makholm Der er ingen der sigter på slottet. D'herrer konger agter
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
sub 2. The work must not be changed or made available to the public
in a way or in a context that violates the author's literary or
artistic reputation or character.
And this is the number one lose for this bogus sort of copyright
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Of course they are. The fact that the author intends for his work to
be free is made very explicit by applying the GPL to it. Since moral
rights are about protecting the author's intentions with creating the
work, there cannot, logically, be any
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Note that the distortion or mutilation has to hurt the
honor or reputation of the author. Here in the Netherlands
this is the case if the owner of a house decides to put up
new blinds in a color the architect does not like.
Since people
Scripsit Thomas Bushnell, BSG
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Of course they are. The fact that the author intends for his work to
be free is made very explicit by applying the GPL to it. Since moral
rights are about protecting the author's intentions with creating the
work,
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit Thomas Bushnell, BSG
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Of course they are. The fact that the author intends for his work to
be free is made very explicit by applying the GPL to it. Since moral
rights are about protecting the
On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 08:11:02PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
It is stupid if they released their software under a free license
without realizing what freedom means.
Well, the realization of what freedom means does in fact appear to be
escaping some advocates of the GNU FDL...
--
G.
[snip]
It looks like Republican notions of tort reform[1] might have a lot of
support in Europe.
[1] Before being appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court, William Rehnquist
*defined* judicial conservatism as being a technique for reading the
law such that criminal defendants and civil plaintiffs are
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 08:11:02PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
It is stupid if they released their software under a free license
without realizing what freedom means.
Well, the realization of what freedom means does in fact appear to be
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
[This is starting to shift away from the GFDL so I modified the
subject. Georg, I can suppress you from the Cc: if you wish so.]
On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 11:25:43PM -0400,
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 29 lines which said:
Naturally, I'm
* Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] [030501 21:57]:
On Thu, 1 May 2003, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
I cannot see the problem here. Even if the quoted sub 2 can be
applied, it may only disallow you making something available to
the public (i.e. some forms of distributing it).
It says changed _OR_
On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 11:11:41AM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote:
Under droit d'auteur, you're not allowed to grant unqualified permission
to the reciever of a work to make modifications or to distribute the work.
You cannot fulfil the GPL requirements, so you cannot distribute the work.
You
Scripsit Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ok, how about Tuomas Kuosmanen, the creator of a whole lot of fine icons
in various free software packages? Would his qualify as an artistic
reputation?
Perhaps.
Would he be able, regardless of the fact that his icons are released
under GPL, to prevent
Scripsit Greg Pomerantz
The main problem with moral rights seems to be inalienability. As far as
I understand it, artists can decide at the time of the use of the work
whether they believe it is prejudicial to their honor and reputation.
That's a misunderstanding. It is not the artist who
I don't think so. On the contrary, BECAUSE of the fact that he
voluntarily released his icons under GPL, it is an integral part of
the artistic character of the work that it can be used in any context
and with any modifications anyone pleases. Therefore, no actual use or
modification can
* Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] [030501 21:57]:
Under droit d'auteur, you're not allowed to grant unqualified permission
to the reciever of a work to make modifications or to distribute the work.
You cannot fulfil the GPL requirements, so you cannot distribute the work.
On Fri, 2 May
The main problem with moral rights seems to be inalienability. As far as
I understand it, artists can decide at the time of the use of the work
whether they believe it is prejudicial to their honor and reputation.
That's a misunderstanding. It is not the artist who decides this.
Sure,
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Stupidity does not create rights. (Opposite in some other parts of the
world where one can become rich simply by being too stupid to imagine
that coffee might be hot).
Punitive damages are a stupid concept (does any country other than the
USA have them?) but
On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 05:48:23PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Stupidity does not create rights. (Opposite in some other parts of the
world where one can become rich simply by being too stupid to imagine
that coffee might be hot).
Can we put this legend to rest? I realize this is off-topic,
1 - 100 of 123 matches
Mail list logo
