On 03/06/07, Mike Linksvayer
<ml(a)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?
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