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 t
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 th
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 cou
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" i
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
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 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 absolutely
>> >
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 absolutely
> > and unquestionably legally necessary is a violation of the moral
> > rights of the contributors. We contributed to a free encyclopedia, in
2009/1/30 Andrew Gray :
> 2009/1/28 Thomas Dalton :
>
>> 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 published in a
>> book first and added to Wi
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 2:13 AM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> First, we think it's wonderful that O'Reilly has done this; TMM is a
> fantastic book and a great introduction for newbies. (We have been
> giving copies away as gifts for a while.) I believe Frank is planning
> to blog about this in more deta
2009/1/31 Peter Jacobi :
> David Gerard 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 rights tag:
http://commons.wikimedia
David Gerard 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
foundation-l@lists.wi
2009/1/31 Geoffrey Plourde :
> 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 requiring uploaders
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. W
13 matches
Mail list logo
