So the question is: When the right to take back a release in the event of a derogatory derivative is reserved is it "free content"?
Birgitte SB
--- Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Well, in certain countries the rights just cannot be waived, from what I have heard. Thus, if the author were to change their mind about their image being "free", they could take it back. I don't know that that legal right exists in the US. I can imagine that many authors would _want_ to make the image non-free again if something like that happened (the image were modified to mock them).
Mark
On 20/04/07, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Pedro Sanchez pdsanchez@gmail.com wrote:
No matter how free is the image, the author will always remain the author. That's nothing to do with freeness.
Sorry I missed this comment on first reading. Authorship is not the moral right in question.
The
question is about the moral rights effecting derivatives which might be seen as distorting or mulitating the work or somehow insulting the honor
of
the author. While the definition of freedom says derivative must be allowed "regardless of the
intent
and purpose of such modifications"
Birgitte SB
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
protection around
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com