Anthony wrote:
My point of view is that the proposed license
update is a violation of the
moral rights of the contributors. If Mike is going to deny that moral
rights exist in the first place, then I feel the need to explain that they
do.
The problem is that moral rights in your sense---i.e. not the legal
construct "moral rights" that exists in some countries' laws, but a more
general concept of morality as it relates to authorship---boils down to
settling philosophical debates on what constitutes a "right", what
"morality" is, and so on. You have some opinions on these matters, while
others have other opinions, and I certainly don't expect this mailing
list to be the place where centuries-long debates over what (if
anything) constitutes a "moral right" are resolved. So I'm not too sure
what the point of the discussion is.
The only reason that "moral rights" is an issue is its inclusion in
the
statutes of various countries. It mostly stems from an inflated
Napoleonic view of the Rights of Man that was meant to replace the
divine rights of kings. Common law countries have been loath to embark
in this direction. Moral rights are mentioned in the US law, but only
as a toothless tiger.
Ec