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. 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. Unless Dutch copyright law undergoes some very drastic changes (which are not forseen in the nearby future) for Dutch pictures
3.0 is the same as 2.5. For pictures under 2.5 the Dutch law says that moral rights can't we waived, for 3.0 the Dutch law and the license say the moral rights can't be waived. The result is the same; a 3.0 Dutch picture is not more unfree than a
2.5 Dutch picture.
-Fruggo
On 7/14/07, geni <geniice@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/14/07, Samuli Lintula <samuli@samulilintula.net> wrote:
> The world is not "free". Moral rights exist and make a large part of
> Commons files unfree - whether we accept it or not. I think we should
> accept it.
>
Under UK law it is posible to waive those rights.
> BTW, why is it that requiring attribution (an inelianable moral right) is
> considered free while requiring other inalienable moral rights is unfree?
Because it doesn't really place restictions on what you can do with the work
--
geni
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l