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 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
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.
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
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
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
* 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
Bernhard R. Link wrote:
If author's rights would be introduced in the USA, this might be the
case.
Author's rights, or at least the moral rights idea therein, are
already in US law. 17 US Code article 106A says, for example, that
the author shall have the right to prevent the use of his or her
* Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] [030501 12:56]:
On Wed, 2003-04-30 at 12:37, Henning Makholm wrote:
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.
On Wed, 2003-04-30 at 12:37, Henning Makholm wrote:
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.
* Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] [030501
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 12:34:36PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
Can you explain the above? I do not see why and in which way the
Droit d'auteur system is more hostile to free software. There is
currently a lot of lobbying in Europe and in the world against this
Droit d'auteur system and
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 12:34:36PM +0200,
Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 30 lines which said:
Can you explain the above? I do not see why and in which way the
Droit d'auteur system is more hostile to free software.
Since you did not reply, I take the liberty, in
On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 07:50:45PM +1200,
Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 42 lines which said:
I guess the reason for that opposition is because it empowers the
original, human, author in such a way that the large publishing company
cannot possibly disenfranchise him by
On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 10:43:24AM +0200,
Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 74 lines which said:
spreading of this FUD, to explain why there is no incompatibility
between the droit d'auteur and the common law's copyright system.
Our smart readers certainly fixed that
Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Differences: as far as free software is concerned, the big difference
between the two systems seems to be that, under the Droit d'auteur,
the author has a moral right which can *not* be waived or granted to
anyone else.
We already have OT in the
On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 12:21:41PM +0100,
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 23 lines which said:
We already have OT in the subject, so may I ask whether this moral
right ceases with the death of the author,
For non-software, it was 50 years after the death of the
Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
We already have OT in the subject, so may I ask whether this moral
right ceases with the death of the author,
For non-software, it was 50 years after the death of the author, it is
now 70 (corporations lobbied a lot for that). For software, I'm not
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 12:34:36PM +0200,
Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 30 lines which said:
But it is not a real problem. Under the droit d'auteur, the author's
right over *software* is quite limited, (unlike other work, such as
books). For instance, she
Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For non-software, it was 50 years after the death of the author, it is
now 70 (corporations lobbied a lot for that). For software, I'm not
sure.
Since there's been a lot of talk about the difficulty in making a
distinction between software and
Scripsit Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED]
We already have OT in the subject, so may I ask whether this moral
right ceases with the death of the author, or whether a hostile
descendent can use it to prevent reproduction of the author's work?
FUD. Moral rights do not allow a hostile
On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
But it is not a real problem. Under the droit d'auteur, the author's
right over *software* is quite limited
Is this the basic point by which moral rights do not prevent software
from being free? They're not generally applied to software?
So,
On Wed, 2003-04-30 at 12:37, Henning Makholm wrote:
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.
So, I assume that if a work which has artistic or literary
[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 more familiar with the European
25 matches
Mail list logo
