Thomas Dalton writes:

To be more precise, it's as if you showed up to a programming conference and said that to someone who had just dismissed OOP principles as unimportant.

When you say "to be more precise," can you say what you mean, precisely?

It doesn't seem "more precise" to imply that anyone has dismissed moral rights as unimportant.

A more careful reading -- yes, I know it is unreasonable to expect careful reading -- might lead to an understanding that the particular problem set relating to moral-rights jurisprudence is not terribly applicable in a context in which the free licenses in question strive for attribution (rather than attempting to dodge attribution or misattribute creative works). Similarly, greater care might lead one not to make grand pronouncements either about the number or diversity of lawyers required to address the moral-rights issue (especially if one is not a lawyer and not an expert on the issue), or about the qualifications of a particular lawyer about whose background one may know next to nothing.

Just a suggestion. (And I encourage anyone who hears me making pronouncements about object-oriented programming to take me down a notch.)

--Mike