To be certain I am understanding you; is the following
correct:
The Free Content Definition is to only to be used to
evaluate a *license* not an individual work.
Birgitte SB
--- Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
On 4/20/07, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:
Based on the definition [1] promoted by WMF, I
am
wondering if free content exists in France where
moral
rights are inalienable, perpetual and inviolable.
Hello,
the licensing policy has been specifically
formulated to avoid that
problem. It requires content to be under a Free
Content License, which
is defined as "a license which meets the terms of
the Definition of
Free Cultural Works _specific to licenses_". It does
not require the
absence of impeding moral rights restrictions.
That said, I have always found it highly problematic
that these rights
are inalienable in certain countries. Hopefully,
future copyright
reforms can address this problem.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an
official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying.
Something new, open,
free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the
Mechanic
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around