On Sun, 2007-06-03 at 05:11 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
On 03/06/07, Mike Linksvayer ml@creativecommons.org wrote:
The language is not intended to introduce moral rights where none exist (which is basically only the U.S.) -- "Except ... as may be otherwise permitted by applicable law" -- e.g., in the U.S. mutilation (or whatever) is permitted because there is no right of integrity that prohibits it. In retrospect wording like "In those jurisdictions in which the right of integrity exists, and except ..." would have made this more obvious. We will put this in the hopper for 4.0, which hopefully is a very long way off. However, I do not see how 3.0 can reasonably be thought to endanger the commons (generic and Wikimedia Commons in particular) as it does not attempt to add any restriction beyond what is inherent in each jurisdiction's moral rights or lack thereof. Note that I work for CC but am not a lawyer and this is not a legal opinion.
I do still have to ask:
What on *earth* were you all thinking?
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Version_3#International_Harmonization_.E2.80...
The key is probably
[European] courts would take a dim view of a license that did not expressly include [moral rights].
Note that the 3.0 US jurisdiction licenses do not contain this language, see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/legalcode