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@gmail.com
> wrote:On 14/07/07, Fruggo <fruggo@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@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l