On 14/07/07, Fruggo fruggo@gmail.com wrote:
Is that a relevant question? We're talking about the applicable law, not if it can be enforced. Whether it can or cannot be enforced in country X shouldn't be decisive to the decision to do or do not break the law.
Geni has a tendency to go off on apparently querulous tangents; please don't feel obligated to follow.
The problem with the CC 3.0 licences is that they add moral rights restrictions that read as though they're applicable in countries which don't have said restrictions in law. This is a usage restriction, hence not a free licence.
In addition, what if the moral rights legislation in the countries in question were to be weakened? This would mean the licence was specifying restrictions that were not in the law of the country the licence variant was supposedly tweaked toward.
The "for any purpose" of a free licence necessarily implies "for any legal purpose", which means a CC 2.5 licence would not somehow mean one was free of legal obligations regarding moral rights.
- d.