On 15/07/07, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote:
On Jul 14, 2007, at 11:41 AM, David Gerard 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.
So I can tell you, having conferred with everyone involved, that this
is absolutely NOT the intention.
The intention is not what is under scrutiny here: the contents of the
license is.
I am on the board of creative commons and thus privy to the
discussions. I think there is a clumsy wording here that needs to be
clarified for non lawyers, but all the lawyers say the same thing: no
additional moral rights in countries where those laws do not apply.
I guess this counts as a professional opinion that many people have
been asking for, however it is likely this will be perceived as an
action by Creative Commons (I presume the lawyers are theirs, but I
may be wrong) to get people to use the 3.0 license.
I am working to get a clear statement and clarification on this. We
can be annoyed if there is an ambiguity, but rest assured: the
intention is 100% pure here, as far as I understand it.
Again, it is not the intention being challenged here, it is the license.
--Jimbo
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
-UH