I do realise the notion of rejecting Dutch pictures seems absurd but might
be too realistic (so, no, I didn't mean it as a reductio ad absurdum, well,
at least for 90% I didn't). And the most scary thing is that it doesn't just
apply to pictures: if we consider 3.0 to be unfree, that means that Dutch
copyright law is unfree and incompatible with free licenses, what doesn't
just mean that Dutch pictures are unfree but also Dutch texts, which means
that the Dutch Wikipedia cannot exist :S
(please tell me I'm on the wrong track here)
-Fruggo
On 7/14/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 14/07/07, Fruggo <fruggo(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Maybe under UK law it is possible to waive moral
rights, but under Dutch
law
it isn't.
The restrictions those inalienable moral rights place on what you can do
with the work aren't any different from the restrictions Dutch (and
other
countries) laws place on the use of the work.
However, the wording of the licenses appears to place usage
restrictions upon the works in countries where those laws do not
apply.
If this is not the case, I eagerly await Joichi's clarification and
explanation, as noted.
If those restrictions are the
reason to not accept 3.0, than we shouldn't accept any "free" pictures
from
the Netherlands (and other countries), since the
moral rights connected
to
these "free" pictures can never be
waived.
You may think you're presenting that as a reductio ad absurdum, but
this is actually a serious possibility.
- d.
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l